Eliseo Morales Garcia v. Hon. Luisa M. Colom Garcia, Superior Judge of Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Superior Court of Bayamon; John Doe 1 through 100

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3] INRE: 4 ELISEO MORALES GARCIA Case No. 04-12461 (ESL) 5 || MARIBEL MENA MELENDEZ, Chapter 11 6 Debtor(s). ELISEO MORALES GARCIA Adversary Proceeding No. 05-00102 8 MARIBEL MENA MELENDEZ, Plaintiff(s), 10 V. 11 12 | HON. LUISA M. COLOM GARCIA, SUPERIOR JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST 13 || INSTANCE OF PUERTO RICO, SUPERIOR COURT OF BAYAMON; JOHN DOE 1 141 THROUGH 100, 15 Defendant(s). 16 M7 OPINION AND ORDER 18 This case is before the court upon the motion to dismiss filed by codefendant Hon. Luisa M 19 20 Colom Garcia on the grounds of judicial immunity, and plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, alleging tha 41 || the judge’s actions were taken in complete absence of jurisdiction, and, thus, the doctrine of judicia 22 || immunity is inapplicable. Plaintiffs’ position is that actions in violation of the automatic stay ars 23 || null and void. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted. 24 At the outset, the court notes that in the original complaint the plaintiffs made simila: 25 36 allegations against Judge Colom.' However, during the hearing held on May 23, 2005, the plaintiff 27 | See Complaint (Docket No. 1): 28 31, In refusing to declare the public auction null and void, Judge Colém is in fact taking away Debtors’ control over property of their estate. Said action or inaction, with knowledge of the filing of Debtors’ Chapter 11 petition, is a willful

1 || indicated that they would not pursue any allegations against Judge Colom, thus, making any clain for violation of the automatic stay moot. The only issue left pending was whether the decision b} Y y p the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Part, was null and void 5 Plaintiffs reallege essentially the same facts,” and this time oppose that the action be dismissed a: 6 || to the judicial officer, Although plaintiffs may be judicially estopped’ from such a course of action 7 || the court finds that Judge Colom’s actions are shielded with judicial immunity. 8 It is a basic tenet of our system of justice that judicial officers must be free to decide controversies without fear of personal consequences, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), anc 10 are entitled to judicial immunity for their actions in furtherance of their judicial duties anc violation of the provisions of Section 542(a). 13 32. In refusing to declare the public auction null and void, Judge Colom has 14 acted with knowledge that Debtors have filed a Chapter 11 petition and that the retention of property of the estate is a willful violation of Section 542. 15 33. As aresult of Judge Colom’s intentional, deliberate and unlawful conduct, 16 Debtors are entitled to compensatory damages. 7 ? See Amended Complaint (Docket No. 41): 18 13. Notwithstanding Debtors’ bankruptcy filing on December 8, 2004, which was duly notified, the Bayamén Court proceeded to sell the aforementioned 19 properties through public auction on December 20, 2004, eleven (11} days after Debtors’ bankrupicy petition. 20 14. The public auction was performed notwithstanding Debtors’ request for a stay of all proceedings filed on December 17, 2004, copy of which is attached as Exhibit B of the Complaint. Pursuant to the illegal public auction, co-defendants Almeida paid $3,665,000.00 for the subject property. Said monies are still 22 deposited in the Bayamén Court. 23 15. Furthermore, Debtors proceeded to request from Judge Colom to declare the public auction null and void, through motion filed on December 22, 2004, copy 24 of which is attached as Exhibit C of the Complaint. Said motion was initially granted by Judge Colom (see Order included as Exhibit D of the Complaint) but 25 after scheduling an emergency hearing for January 27, 2005, Judge Colom proceeded to vacate her initial ruling and ruled instead that the public auction was 26 valid. See Minutes of proceedings enclosed as Exhibit E of the Complaint. 97 (Footnote omitted.) 3 A party may be judicially estopped from presenting a position directly inconsistent with one previously 28 || taken. In re Bankvest Capital Corp., 375 F.3d 51, 60 (1st Cir. 2004). -2-

1 || responsibilities, unless performed in clear absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 US. 9, 2 14 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227-229 (1988). The scope of subject matter jurisdiction must be broadly construed. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356. A judge is entitled to judicial

5 immunity even ifhe or she acted in error, including whether or not the automatic stay provisions of

6 || 11 U.S.C. 362(a) are applicable to the controversy before said court. Kearns vy, Orr, 161 B.R. 701, 7 | 704 (D. Kansas 1993). 8 The contested judicial action by Judge Colom is her decision not to vacate a public auction ° held in a distribution of inheritance action under her consideration, made after the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Clearly, Judge Colom had subject matter jurisdiction over the distribution of

12 inheritance action. Whether or not she may have erred on her decision regarding the applicability of 13 || the automatic stay is irrelevant. Judge Colom is entitled to judicial immunity for her decision. See 14 In re Perry, 312 BR. 720 (Bankr. MD. Georgia 2004); In re Womack, 253 BR. 241 15 (Bankr. E.D. Arkansas 2000); Jn re Coates, 108 B.R. 823 (Bankr. M.D. Georgia 1989). In view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint is dismissed as

18 to Judge Colom. The Clerk shall enter partial judgment accordingly. 19 SO ORDERED. rh 20 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this Tey of May, 2006. 21 22 □□

24 U.S, Bankruptcy Judge 25 26 27 28 -3-