Holbrook v. Mason

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 4, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01413
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Barbara Holbrook, No. CV-20-01413-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Anthony H Mason,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 16 (“Motion for Preliminary Injunction”), (Doc. 3); (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), (Doc. 11); (3) Plaintiff’s Response to 18 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Response”), (Doc. 12); (4) Plaintiff’s Supplemental 19 Motion to Partially Withdraw Referral or in the Alternative for Leave to Bring Declaratory 20 Judgement Action (“Supplemental Motion”), (Doc. 13), and (5) Defendant’s Reply in 21 Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Reply”), (Doc. 14). For the following reasons, 22 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 23 Injunction and Supplemental Motion are DENIED. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 BCB Contracting Services, LLC, is an Arizona limited liability company (“BCB”). 26 (Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 16), at ¶ 11). As of March, 2017, Plaintiff was 27 the sole member of BCB. (Id.). On March 27, 2019, Plaintiff submitted to the Arizona 28 Corporation Commission (“ACC”) articles of amendment to the articles of organization of 1 BCB reflecting her withdrawal as a member of BCB. (Id. at ¶ 13). The ACC rejected 2 Plaintiff’s filing, issuing a statement noting that Plaintiff was the only member of BCB, 3 and stating that if Plaintiff wished to be removed as a member of BCB, there must be a 4 new member or manager assigned to BCB. (Id. at 14). On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff, 5 believing herself to still be a member of BCB, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on 6 behalf of BCB, thus initiating In re BCB Contracting Services, LLC, 2:19-BK-15555 7 (Bankr. D. Ariz., Dec. 11, 2019) (“the Bankruptcy”). (Doc. 16 at ¶ 15). Defendant was 8 appointed as the trustee in the Bankruptcy. (Id. at ¶ 4). 9 On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff commenced a special action in Maricopa County Superior 10 Court (“the Special Action”) asking that the ACC be compelled to accept, file, and process 11 the articles of amendment that Plaintiff submitted to the ACC in March, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 16). 12 On June 23, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Appearance and Notice of Bankruptcy Filing 13 in the Special Action stating that Defendant did not authorize the filing of the Special 14 Action, and that Plaintiff did not seek relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 15 in the Bankruptcy Court to initiate the Special Action. (Id. at ¶ 17). On June 24, 2020, the 16 Maricopa County Superior Court issued an order, citing Defendant’s Notice of Appearance 17 and Notice of Bankruptcy Filing, staying proceedings in the Special Action, and providing 18 for the automatic dismissal of the Special Action on August 24, 2020 unless before that 19 date:

20 the Plaintiff demonstrates she has moved to lift the stay but the 21 request has not been ruled upon or has been granted; or she has sought to reduce the claim(s) against the debtor to judgment in 22 the Bankruptcy Court in an adversary proceeding and the 23 adversary proceeding has not yet been resolved despite diligence in seeking such a resolution; or she has obtained 24 severance of the claim(s) against the debtor from the claim(s) 25 against the other parties to the action …

26 (Id. at ¶ 18). 27 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to 28 enjoin Defendant from asserting or maintaining that the Special Action has violated or will 1 violate 11 U.S.C. § 362. (Doc. 3 at 1). On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First 2 Amended Complaint seeking a declaratory judgement that the Special Action has not and 3 will not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362 and seeking to enjoin Defendant from asserting or 4 maintaining that the Special Action has violated or will violate 11 U.S.C. § 362. (Doc 16 5 at 6–7).1 6 On July 27, 2020, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Obtain Leave 7 of the Bankruptcy Court to Sue the Chapter 7 Trustee under the Barton doctrine. (Doc. 11 8 at 1–3). On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Supplemental Motion seeking, if the Court 9 grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy 10 Court of the District of Arizona regarding the determination of whether 11 U.S.C. § 362 11 prohibits the Special Action or granting Plaintiff leave to maintain the action at issue 12 against Defendant. (Doc. 13 at 1). 13 II. Discussion 14 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 15 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in 16 a particular case,” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 17 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citation omitted), “and the burden of establishing 18 the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction,” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 19 (internal citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states 20 that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 21 must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 22 Defendant argues that under the Barton doctrine, the Court lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to obtain leave from the bankruptcy court to bring this 24 suit against the trustee appointed in the Bankruptcy. (Doc. 11 at 3). The Barton doctrine 25 provides that no suit may be brought against a receiver without leave of the receiver’s 26 appointing court. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 136–137 (1881). The Ninth Circuit 27 1 The First Amended Complaint is not an “amendment” to the original complaint but is 28 merely a refiling of the original complaint with the exhibits attached after the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide the exhibits. 1 recognizes that the Barton doctrine can extend to bankruptcy trustees as well as receivers. 2 Beck v. Fort James Corp. (In re Crown Vantage, Inc.), 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005) 3 (“We join our sister circuits in holding that a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy 4 court before it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee or other 5 officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer's official capacity.”). 6 Under Barton, plaintiffs must obtain authorization from the bankruptcy court before 7 “initiat[ing] an action in another forum” against certain officers appointed by the 8 bankruptcy court for actions the officers have taken in their official capacities. In re 9 Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 841 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Crown 10 Vantage, 421 F.3d at 970). “It is undisputed that a trustee in bankruptcy is an officer of the 11 Court, and that as such, he is not subject to suit without leave of the appointing court for 12 acts done in his official capacity and within his authority as an officer of the Court.” 13 Leonard v. Vrooman, 383 F.2d 556, 560 (9th Cir. 1967) (internal citation removed). A 14 district court is considered “another forum,” requiring leave of the bankruptcy court before 15 a lawsuit can be brought. Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (9th Cir. 16 BAP 1995). Thus, “leave to sue the trustee is required to sue in those federal courts other 17 than the bankruptcy court which actually approves the trustee's appointment.” Id. 18 Leave is not required if a trustee’s actions fall within the statutory exception to the 19 Barton doctrine codified at 28 U.S.C. § 959(a). The exception provides that a trustee, 20 receiver, or manager may be sued without leave of the appointing court in an action 21 regarding their acts or transactions in carrying on the business connected with the property 22 of the bankruptcy estate. Id. Here, Defendant was not carrying on the business connected 23 with the property of the Bankruptcy, he was submitting a Notice of Appearance and Notice 24 of Bankruptcy Filing in the Special Action. Thus, the statutory exception to the Barton 25 doctrine does not apply. 26 Plaintiff argues that the Barton doctrine is inapplicable to this case because Plaintiff 27 does not seek an award of money damages or to affect the property of the bankruptcy estate. 28 (Doc. 12 at 2–4). The Ninth Circuit, however, has not so limited the Barton doctrine 1 holding that, “without leave of the bankruptcy court, no suit may be maintained against a 2 trustee for actions taken in the administration of the estate.” Curry v. Castillo (In re 3 Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 323.03[3] 4 (15th ed. rev. 2001)) (emphasis added); see In re CFB Liquidating Corp., 576 B.R. 610, 5 621 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2017) (holding that Barton doctrine is not limited to suits seeking 6 damages and applying Barton doctrine to a suit seeking declaratory relief). Thus, even a 7 suit that does not seek money damages or to affect the property of a bankruptcy estate can 8 fall under the Barton doctrine. 9 Plaintiff further argues that the Barton doctrine is inapplicable because Plaintiff 10 seeks only declaratory relief on a question that will not affect the bankruptcy estate. (Doc. 11 12 at 2–4). Yet, “the question of whether a foreign action affects the bankruptcy estate is 12 to be addressed to the bankruptcy court as an initial matter.” Crown Vantage, 421 F.3d at 13 973, n.6. “The Barton doctrine is a practical tool to ensure that all lawsuits that could affect 14 the administration of the bankruptcy estate proceed either in the bankruptcy court, or with 15 the knowledge and approval of the bankruptcy court.” Harris v. Wittman (In re Harris), 16 590 F.3d 730, 742 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). It is for the bankruptcy court to 17 determine if the instant case could affect the Bankruptcy, and to decide the case or give 18 leave for it to be decided elsewhere. 19 Here, Plaintiff failed to seek leave from the bankruptcy court before initiating the 20 present action against Defendant. (Doc. 11 at ¶ 3). Defendant is the trustee appointed in the 21 Bankruptcy. (Doc. 16 at ¶ 6). Defendant undertook the action at issue in his official 22 capacity as trustee for the Bankruptcy and is being sued in his official capacity as trustee. 23 (Doc. 16–4 at 1; Doc. 16 at ¶ 4). Thus, the Barton doctrine applies, and the Court does not 24 have subject matter jurisdiction over the present action.2 25 III. Conclusion 26 Based on the foregoing, 27 2 The Court independently reviewed the bankruptcy docket and notes that it appears 28 Plaintiff has now received through other channels the relief she seeks in the Special Action. Accordingly, in addition to the discussion above, it appears this case is also moot. 1 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED, this case is dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiff seeking relief before the Bankruptcy 3 || Court, but with prejudice as to whether this Court has original jurisdiction; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3) and 6 || Supplemental Motion to Withdraw the Reference (Doc. 13) are denied as moot. 7 Dated this 4th day of September, 2020. 8 ? '

ll _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-6-