Barton Wayne Fishback v. Joe T. Edmiston

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 18-6946-DMG (KSx) Date December 18, 2019

Title Barton Wayne Fishback, et al. v. Joseph T. Edmiston, et al. Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AUTOMATIC STAY SHOULD ISSUE

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiffs Barton Wayne Fishback and Carol Fishback filed a “Notice of Automatic Stay,” informing the Court that they had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in United States Bankruptcy Court and that all proceedings in the instant case should be stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362. [Doc. # 62.]

The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. section 362, does not apply to actions initiated by the debtor which involve no counterclaim against the debtor. See Snavely v. Miller (In re Miller), 397 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The automatic stay is applicable only to proceedings against the debtor.” (emphasis added)). Because Plaintiffs initiated this proceeding, they are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should be stayed. Plaintiffs shall file their response by December 30, 2019. Failure to file a timely and satisfactory response shall result in the denial of any request for a stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.