Antonio Pitts

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 25-10100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

rr By Ie Dated: February 19, 2025 2 Sere The following is ORDERED: wo ON OALIIE □□□ Qs Gas □□□ ky {STRICT OF

Janice D. Loyd U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA In re: ) ) Antonio Pittts, ) Case No. 25-10100-JDL ) Chapter 7 Debtor. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS I. Introduction Having filed nine bankruptcies since 2006, most importantly five within the last fourteen months, the pro se Debtor seeks sanctions against his landlord for having allegedly violated the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362.’ Before the Court for consideration is Debtor’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Automatic stay and Motion for Order for Contempt (“Motion”) [Doc. 10]. While the time has not yet expired for any party to file a response to the Debtor’s Motion, the Court regards

' Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

the Debtor’s Motion as so specious that the Court can dispose of it on a sua sponte basis. II. Background 1. The Debtor, Antonio Pitts, filed the present bankruptcy case on January 16, 2025, by the filing of a pro se voluntary bankruptcy petition seeking relief under Chapter 7 of the

Bankruptcy Code. 2. Debtor has filed nine (9) bankruptcy cases since 2006 with the following case dispositions: Case No. Chapter Date Filed Disposition Disposition Date 06-11324 7 06/15/2006 Discharge 09/13/2006 11-12047 13 04/19/2011 Dismissed 09/15/2011 11-15189 13 09/22/2011 Dismissed 09/24/2013 16-10176 7 01/22/2016 Discharge 04/27/2016 23-13395 13 12/27/2023 Dismissed 01/29/2024 24-10291 7 02/08/2024 Dismissed 02/29/2024

24-10531 7 03/05/2024 Closed With 08/20/2024 No Discharge

24-13548 7 12/17/2024 Dismissed 01/13/2025

25-10100 7 01/16/2025 Pending 3. According to a Debtor’s current Schedules, the largest debt is owed to GTR Management Group, LLC (“GTR”) from whom Debtor leases his current residence. The debt listed to GTR by Debtor is $7,170. 4. Debtor’s eighth bankruptcy (Case No. 24-13548, dismissed on January 13, 2025) appears to have also been filed to stop an eviction by GTR (Oklahoma County District 2 Court Case No. SC-24-6238). In that bankruptcy Debtor filed a Motion for Sanctions against GTR similar to the one filed in the present case. The Court struck that Motion for the Debtor’s failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and the case was dismissed for the Debtor’s failure to pay the filing fees. 5. Debtor’s seventh case (Case No. 24-10531, closed on August 20, 2024) listed

as a creditor’s Debtor’s previous landlord, R&R Homes Hallmark Property Management (“Hallmark”), which was also attempting to evict Debtor (District Court Cleveland County, Case No. SC-23-5833). The debt listed to Hallmark by Debtor was $7,958. III. Discussion Debtor’s Motion is dependent upon the existence of the automatic stay when GTR sought to enforce its rights to collect rent, including seeking eviction of the Debtor from the leased premises, as alleged by the Debtor. The Bankruptcy Code § 362(c)(4)(A)(i), which controls the viability of Debtor’s Motion, provides:

“[I]f a single or joint case is filed by or against a debtor who is an individual under this title, and if 2 or more single or joint cases of the debtor were pending within the previous year but were dismissed, other than a case refiled under a chapter other than chapter 7 after dismissal under section 707(b), the stay under subsection (a) shall not go into effect upon the filing of the later case.” In short, the automatic stay does not come into effect “if 2 or more single or joint cases of the debtor were pending within the preceding year but were dismissed.” Here, the Debtor had four bankruptcy cases pending within the year before the filing of the present case. When § 362(c)(4)(A)(i) applies to a case, no automatic stay is in effect upon the filing of 3 the petition. In re Benefield, 438 B.R. 706, 709 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2010); In re Easthope, 2006 WL 851829 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006). When § 362(c)(4) applies, the debtor (or other party) may seek relief under § 362(c)(4)(B) which provides that “if, within 30 days after the filing of the latter case, a party in interest requests the court may order the stay to take effect in the case as to any

and all creditors....” The present case was filed on January 16, 2025, and more than 30 days have expired without the Debtor seeking imposition of the automatic stay. The Debtor is now barred from seeking imposition of the stay. The Court finds that the automatic stay has not been in effect in the present case so as to afford the Debtor the basis of seeking sanctions against creditor GTR for violation of the same. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Debtor’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Automatic stay and Motion for Order for Contempt [Doc. 10] is Denied.

# # #