In Re: Jordana Marinkovic Bauman

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01564
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE: JORDANA M. BAUMAN, Case No.: 3:24-CV-1564 JLS (BLM)

12 Debtor, ORDER ON APPELLANT’S 13 MOTION TO CLARIFY STATUS AFTER BANKRUPTCY FILING 14

15 MEL MARIN, (ECF No. 17) 16 Appellant,

18 MICHAEL KOCH, Appellee. 19

20 21 Presently before the Court is Appellant Mel Marin’s Motion titled “Appellant’s 22 Notice of and Motion to Clarify Status After Bankruptcy Filing” (“Mot.,” ECF No. 17). 23 Appellant indicates he filed for bankruptcy on December 9, 2024, and “asks if this case is 24 stayed because only the bankruptcy trustee has standing to prosecute this appeal against 25 Mr. Koch et al, under the rule in [Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group], 26 713 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2010).” Mot. at 1. The Court notes that in Lane, 27 the court held, “[i]f plaintiffs were in bankruptcy they clearly would lack standing to bring 28 this action absent abandonment of their claims by the bankruptcy trustee. However, 1 || plaintiffs continue to have standing to pursue this case because their bankruptcy petition 2 || was dismissed after [the relevant motion was filed].” Lane, 713 F. Supp. 2d at 1097. At 3 || present, Appellant indicates only that he has filed for bankruptcy, not that such petition has 4 ||been denied or granted. Mot. at 1. 5 To the extent Plaintiff requests “clarification” regarding whether this case is 6 presently stayed, the Court has not ordered a stay. See Docket. Rather, the Court 7 || previously denied Appellant’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. See ECF No. 15. To the 8 ||extent Appellant seeks to impliedly suggest, through his Motion to Clarify, that this case 9 should be stayed, the Court DENIES such request. Appellant, whose Motion consists of 10 ||a single sentence, has not met his burden of showing that the circumstances justify an 11 ||}exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant a stay. See Hoffmann v. Price, 12 || No. 2:15-CV-1527 DB P, 2019 WL 498991, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019) (“The party 13 requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of 14 || that discretion.”). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: December 19, 2024 (een on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28