In Re: Latricia L. Hardy

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 29, 2016
DocketCivil Action No. 2016-1968
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Latricia L. Hardy (In Re: Latricia L. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Latricia L. Hardy, (D.D.C. 2016).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________ ) IN RE: LATRICIA L. HARDY, ) ) DEBTOR. ) -------------------------------) ) LATRICIA L. HARDY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-1968 (EGS) ) BRYAN S. ROSS, and ALL CREDIT ) CONSIDERED MORTGAGE, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) ) ) LATRICIA L. HARDY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-1969 (EGS) ) BRYAN S. ROSS, and ALL CREDIT ) CONSIDERED MORTGAGE, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) ) ) LATRICIA L. HARDY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-1970 (EGS) ) BRYAN S. ROSS, and ALL CREDIT ) CONSIDERED MORTGAGE, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) )

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Currently pending before the court is appellant LaTricia L.

Hardy’s motion for an emergency temporary restraining order,

which, based on the substance of the motion and the relief

requested, the Court construes as a motion to stay two

bankruptcy court orders pending appeal of those orders in this

Court. See Mot. for an Emergency TRO (“Appellant’s Mot.”), ECF

No. 10. Upon consideration of the motion, the responses thereto,

the applicable law, and the entire record, Ms. Hardy’s motion

for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

I. Background

On May 31, 2016, Ms. Hardy filed a voluntary petition for

relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia. Appellee

ACC Mortgage’s Mem. in Opp. to Appellant’s Mot. for Emergency

TRO (“ACC’s Opp.”), ECF No. 11 at 2; Chapter 7 Trustee’s Opp. to

Debtor’s Mot. for TRO (“Trustee’s Opp.”), ECF No. 13 at 1;

Trustee’s Appellate Appendix (“AA”), ECF No. 12-1 at 21-22. On

June 14, 2016, the Chapter 13 Trustee moved to dismiss with

prejudice. ACC’s Opp. at 2. On June 17, 2016, Ms. Hardy filed a

motion to convert the case to Chapter 11. Id.; AA at 23-24. On

June 24, 2016, All Credit Considered Mortgage, Inc. (“ACC”), a

creditor holding a mortgage claim on Ms. Hardy’s co-owned

commercial property located at 1414-1416 Pennsylvania Avenue,

2 Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003, in turn filed a motion to

dismiss with prejudice or, in the alternative, to convert the

case to Chapter 7 and opposed Ms. Hardy’s motion to convert to

Chapter 11. ACC’s Opp. at 2; AA at 25-42. The bankruptcy court

held a hearing on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion to dismiss and

Ms. Hardy’s motion to convert to Chapter 11 on July 15, 2016,

and on July 25, 2016, that court issued an order converting the

case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. ACC’s Opp. at 2-3; Trustee’s

Opp. at 1; AA at 123-25.1 On August 30, 2016, Ms. Hardy filed a

“motion requesting termination of conversion to Chapter 7

liquidation.” ACC’s Opp. at 3; AA at 149-50. The bankruptcy

court issued an order denying that motion on September 15, 2016.

ACC’s Opp. at 3; AA at 156. Ms. Hardy noticed her appeal of that

order in this Court on September 22, 2016. Notice of Appeal and

Statement of Election, ECF No. 1, Civil Action No. 16-1970.2

Meanwhile on August 17, 2016, the Chapter 7 Trustee, Bryan

S. Ross, filed a motion for an order approving the turnover of

real property——namely, Ms. Hardy’s co-owned commercial property

on Pennsylvania Avenue. ACC’s Opp. at 3; AA at 126-31. Ms. Hardy

1 The bankruptcy court’s docket includes only an audio recording of the July 15, 2016 hearing. This Court requested that a transcript of that hearing be prepared. That transcript is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. 2 The Court sua sponte consolidated Ms. Hardy’s appeals, finding

that they involved common issues of law and fact and grew out of the same event. Minute Entries of October 5, 2016, Civil Action Nos. 16-1969 and 16-1970. 3 did not file any opposition to this motion, Trustee’s Opp. at 1,

though she contends that she failed to do so because she did not

receive notice of the Trustee’s turnover motion. Appellant’s

Mot. at 1; Appellant’s Merits Br., ECF No. 9 at 16-17. The

bankruptcy court granted the turnover motion on September 9,

2016. Appellant’s Mot. at 1; Trustee’s Opp. at 1; AA at 151-52.

Ms. Hardy noticed her appeal of that order in this Court on

September 22, 2016. Notice of Appeal and Statement of Election,

ECF No. 1.

On September 19, 2016, the bankruptcy court issued an

“order clarifying that no stay of the court’s turnover order is

in place pending disposition of the motion for a stay” of the

turnover order that Ms. Hardy had filed in that court on

September 16, 2016. AA at 157. Ms. Hardy noticed an appeal of

that clarifying order along with her two other appeals in this

Court on September 22, 2016. Notice of Appeal and Statement of

Election, ECF No. 1, Civil Action No. 16-1969. The bankruptcy

court subsequently denied Ms. Hardy’s motion for a stay of the

turnover order on September 27, 2016, ACC’s Opp. at 3, and on

October 1, 2016 denied an additional motion she had filed that

sought to stay the turnover order, the order denying

“termination” of conversion, and the clarifying order. Trustee’s

Opp. at 2.

4 On November 21, 2016, Ms. Hardy filed in this Court a

motion for an emergency temporary restraining order, which, as

indicated above, is best construed as a motion for a stay of the

bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to “terminate” the

conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 and that court’s order

granting the Chapter 7 Trustee’s turnover motion pending appeal

of those orders in this Court. See Appellant’s Mot. at 3.

II. Analysis

“A motion for a stay pending appeal in a bankruptcy case is

reviewed under the same standard employed in evaluating a

request for a preliminary injunction.” In re Spenlinhauer, No.

15-14223, 2016 WL 526200, at *1 (D. Mass. Feb. 9, 2016).

Accordingly, to be entitled to a stay, Ms. Hardy must show: (1)

that she has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)

that she will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is

denied; (3) that other interested parties will not suffer

substantial harm if injunctive relief is granted; and (4) that

the public interest favors the granting of injunctive relief, or

at least, that the granting of injunctive relief is not adverse

to the public interest. Wolensky Ltd. P’ship v. 2000

Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Inc., No. 91-2348, 1991 WL 229898, at *1

(D.D.C. Oct. 21, 1991).3 “A district court must balance the

3 As indicated, in addition to her appeals of the turnover order and the order denying “termination” of conversion, Ms. Hardy has 5 strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the

four required areas.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v.

England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Here, that balance tips against granting Ms.

Hardy’s motion for a stay.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Ms. Hardy has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of

success on the merits of her appeal.

1. Appeal of Order Denying Motion Requesting Termination of Conversion to Chapter 7

Ms. Hardy has not appealed the order converting the case

from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7; instead, as the Trustee points

out, Br. of Appellee Bryan Ross (“Trustee’s Merits Br.”), ECF

No.

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

Related

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England
454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Circuit, 2006)
Smalls, Eugene C. v. United States
471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Circuit, 2006)
Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)
Stern v. Marshall
131 S. Ct. 2594 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Yvonne C. Edwards v. Nathan Habib, And
366 F.2d 628 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
Brown v. Sobczak (In Re Sobczak)
369 B.R. 512 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Terry v. Sparrow
328 B.R. 450 (M.D. North Carolina, 2005)
In Re Jensen
425 B.R. 105 (S.D. New York, 2010)
N. Parent, Inc. v. Cotter & Co. (In Re N. Parent, Inc.)
221 B.R. 609 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)
Armstrong v. Rushton (In Re Armstrong)
303 B.R. 213 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)
French v. Johnson (In Re Coomer)
375 B.R. 800 (N.D. Ohio, 2007)
In Re Green Hills Development Co., LLC
445 B.R. 647 (S.D. Mississippi, 2011)
Reynolds v. Bank of Canton (In Re Reynolds)
455 B.R. 312 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)
Brian Shapiro v. Barbara Henson
739 F.3d 1198 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Latricia L. Hardy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-latricia-l-hardy-dcd-2016.