Campos-Acosta v. Red Robin International Inc

W.D. Washington

Campos-Acosta v. Red Robin International Inc

DecidedOctober 23, 2019

Docket2:18-cv-01805

StatusUnknown

This text of Campos-Acosta v. Red Robin International Inc (Campos-Acosta v. Red Robin International Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campos-Acosta v. Red Robin International Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 MARIA CAMPOS-ACOSTA, 7 Plaintiff, C18-1805 TSZ 8 v. MINUTE ORDER 9 RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL INC, 10 Defendant. 11 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 12 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for continuance, docket no. 23, is GRANTED as follows. 13 Plaintiff seeks a continuance of the trial and related deadlines in this matter for the purpose of moving to reopen her bankruptcy case and amend her schedules to identify the 14 current tort action against defendant Red Robin International, Inc. (“Red Robin”). Red Robin has opposed any continuance, asserting that plaintiff’s proposed motion to reopen 15 her bankruptcy case is futile. Red Robin, however, would not have standing to object to the reopening of plaintiff’s bankruptcy case, see In re D’Antignac, 2013 WL 1084214 at 16 *1-*4 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2013), and the Court declines to consider Red Robin’s arguments for why a motion to reopen plaintiff’s bankruptcy case should or would be 17 denied. The decision whether to reopen is within the discretion of the Bankruptcy Court. See 11 U.S.C. § 350(b); see also HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Hauf, 2007 WL 196857 18 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2007); In re James, 487 B.R. 587 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013); In re Dunning Bros. Co., 410 B.R. 877 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2009). The Court is persuaded that a 19 stay of this matter is warranted to permit the Bankruptcy Court to exercise its discretion. 20 (2) This case is hereby STAYED pending further order of the Court. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, docket no. 21, is STRICKEN without 21 prejudice to refiling, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted. The parties are DIRECTED to file a Joint Status Report within fourteen (14) days after the Bankruptcy Court rules on 22 any motion to reopen or by December 31, 2019, whichever occurs earlier. 1 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 2 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2019. 3 William M. McCool 4 Clerk 5 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 MARIA CAMPOS-ACOSTA, 7 Plaintiff, C18-1805 TSZ 8 v. MINUTE ORDER 9 RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL INC, 10 Defendant. 11 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 12 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for continuance, docket no. 23, is GRANTED as follows. 13 Plaintiff seeks a continuance of the trial and related deadlines in this matter for the purpose of moving to reopen her bankruptcy case and amend her schedules to identify the 14 current tort action against defendant Red Robin International, Inc. (“Red Robin”). Red Robin has opposed any continuance, asserting that plaintiff’s proposed motion to reopen 15 her bankruptcy case is futile. Red Robin, however, would not have standing to object to the reopening of plaintiff’s bankruptcy case, see In re D’Antignac, 2013 WL 1084214 at 16 *1-*4 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2013), and the Court declines to consider Red Robin’s arguments for why a motion to reopen plaintiff’s bankruptcy case should or would be 17 denied. The decision whether to reopen is within the discretion of the Bankruptcy Court. See 11 U.S.C. § 350(b); see also HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Hauf, 2007 WL 196857 18 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2007); In re James, 487 B.R. 587 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013); In re Dunning Bros. Co., 410 B.R. 877 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2009). The Court is persuaded that a 19 stay of this matter is warranted to permit the Bankruptcy Court to exercise its discretion. 20 (2) This case is hereby STAYED pending further order of the Court. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, docket no. 21, is STRICKEN without 21 prejudice to refiling, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted. The parties are DIRECTED to file a Joint Status Report within fourteen (14) days after the Bankruptcy Court rules on 22 any motion to reopen or by December 31, 2019, whichever occurs earlier. 1 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 2 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2019. 3 William M. McCool 4 Clerk 5 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Campos-Acosta v. Red Robin International Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campos-acosta-v-red-robin-international-inc-wawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack