1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR 2 THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 4 IN RE: CASE NO. 05-01282 5 Chapter 11 6 TOMAS IRIZARRY CONCEPCION 7 8 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 6/28/2013 9 10 11 OPINION ANDORDER 12 Before this court is Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 [Dkt. No. 429], Creditor’s 13 Opposition to Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 [Dkt. No. 434], Debtor’s Reply to 14 15 Creditor’s Opposition to Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 [Dkt. No. 449], Debtor’s Brief 16 in Compliance with the Court’s Order Issued on November 10, 2011 [Dkt. No. 475]Creditor’s Brief 17 in Compliance with the Court’s Order Issued on November 10, 2011 [Dkt. No. 478], Creditor’s 18 19 Motion Requesting Entry of Order [Dkt. No. 511], and Debtor’s Reply to Creditor’s Motion 20 Requesting Entry of Order [Dkt. No. 513]. For the reasons set forth below, Debtor’s automatic stay is 21 hereby LIFTEDas to this litigationto allow state court proceedings to continue. 22 23 I. Factual Background 24 25 Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on February 10, 2005.On February 4, 2009,the same day the order confirming Debtor's Plan of Reorganization was entered on the docket of the case, Creditor Sucesion Francisco PereaFerrer filed its Proof of Claim (“POC 20-1”).Shortly after, Debtor alleged that because the POC 20-1 was filed after the deadline, this Court should 1 disallow such claim. On December 29, 2009, this Court entered an order denying POC 20-1.Upon 2 Creditor’s appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”), the BAP 3 4 remanded this Court’s order to review the denial of POC 20-1 with the equitable standards set forth 5 in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited 6 Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). Accordingly, on March 9, 2011, this Court determined that POC 7 8 20-1 was timely filed under the Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 and Pioneer Investment Services Co. 9 Debtor’s second opposition to Creditor’s POC 20-1 and Creditor’s reply to the opposition followed. 10 On July 7, 2011, this Court asked the parties to file a pretrial report. On November 10, 2011, this 11 12 Court, under Judge Mildred Caban denied Debtor’s motion to strike the unauthorized amendment to 13 the POC 20-1 because the claim was converted from a secured to anunsecured claim.At the hearing, 14 Judge Caban also ordered the parties to submit briefs to this Court. On August 24, 2012, Judge 15 16 Cabanrecused herself from this instant matter. 17 18 II. Discussion and Analysis 19 After reviewing the parties’ arguments, and the relevant law, this Court finds that, the 20 21 question of whether POC 20-1 as amended should be allowed hinges largely on the Puerto Rico law 22 on the existence of Debtor’s obligations to the Creditor. This Court notes that the parties’ arguments 23 are citing and quoting largely from Puerto Rico case law and code. Additionally, this Court 24 25 recognizes that there are two pending cases against both the Debtor and Western Radiosonics Incorporated (Case No. I AC1993-0336 and I AC1993-0335) in front of the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, Superior Court of Mayaguez on the question of whether there was a breach of contract and accordingly whether damages should be rewarded if that breach is to be found. Parties have respectively filed necessary documents and the state court proceedings have been pending for ten 1 years and much of the discovery has beencompleted. Therefore, this Court, without delving into the 2 merits of the parties’ arguments, believes that cause existstomodifythe automatic stay to permit the 3 4 State Court Actions to proceed. IBM v. Fernstrom Storage and Van Co., 938 F.2d 731, 737 (7th 5 Cir.1991) (“[w]here the stayed non-bankruptcy litigation has reached an advanced stage, courts have 6 shown a willingness to lift the stay to allow the litigation to proceed.”); see generally,Crown Heights 7 8 Jewish Cmty. Council, Inc., v. Fischer (In re Fischer), 202 B.R. 341, 355 (E.D.N.Y.1996); In re Mid– 9 Atl. Handling Sys., L.L.C., 304 B.R. 111, 131 (Bankr.D.N.J.2003); Murray Indus., Inc. v. Aristech 10 Chem. Corp. (In re Murray Indus., Inc.), 121 B.R. 635, 637 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1990); In re Kaufman, 11 12 98 B.R. 214, 215 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1989); cf.In re Sonnax Indus., 907 F.2d at 1287 (decliningto lift 13 stay largelybecause “the litigation in state court has not progressed even to the discovery stage.”); 14 Arnold Dev., Inc., v. Collins (In re Collins), 118 B.R. 35, 38 (Bankr.D.Md.1990)(declining to lift 15 16 stay when the parties inthestate court proceeding had not yet begun discovery). 17 Thesuaspontelifting or modifying of the automatic stay authority that this Court draws upon 18 19 is well settled amongst courts in many of our sister Circuits.See e.g.,In re Bellucci, 119 B.R. 763, 20 779 (Bankr.E.D.Cal. 1990) (“The second sentence of section 105(a) is a rule of construction that, 21 22 when applied to section 362(d), compels the conclusion that a bankruptcy court can lift the automatic 23 stay suasponte. The revisionof the statute in 1986 effectively overruled prior decisions prohibiting a 24 court from acting sua sponte when the statute authorized a party in interest to raise an issue.”); 25 McDowell v. Stein, 415 B.R. 584 (S.D. Fla. 2009)(A bankruptcy court could lift automatic stay sua spontein order topermit appeals in state-court action against debtor to proceed.). This Court considers the factors for cause in modifying the automatic stay sua sponte. In determining whether the stay should be modified or terminated for cause, courts in the First Circuit 1 and other Circuits either (1) analyze the twelve factors enumerated by the Second Circuit in Sonnax; 2 or (2) engage in fact-intensive inquiries that appear to be outlining Sonnax factors, aiming to 3 4 maintain the prepetition status quo ante between the parties. In Re Sonnax Industries, Inc., 907 F.2d 5 1280, 1286 (2nd Cir.1990);See e.g.,C & A, S.E. v. Puerto Rico Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 369 B.R. 6 87, 94-95 (D.P.R. 2007); In re Burger Boys, Inc., 183 B.R. 682, 688 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Bison 7 8 Res., Inc., 230 B.R. 611, 613 (Bankr.N.D.Okla.1999); In re Odd's–N'End's, Inc., 171 B.R. 10, 11 9 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1994). However, some courts utilize a hybrid approach, combining these two 10 above methods of analysis.See, e.g.,In re Brown, 311 B.R. 409,412–13(“[a] court may consider the 11 12 policies reflected in the bankruptcy code, and the interests of the debtor, other creditors and any other 13 interested parties[in applying the Sonnax factors]”) (internal citations omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR 2 THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 4 IN RE: CASE NO. 05-01282 5 Chapter 11 6 TOMAS IRIZARRY CONCEPCION 7 8 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 6/28/2013 9 10 11 OPINION ANDORDER 12 Before this court is Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 [Dkt. No. 429], Creditor’s 13 Opposition to Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 [Dkt. No. 434], Debtor’s Reply to 14 15 Creditor’s Opposition to Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 [Dkt. No. 449], Debtor’s Brief 16 in Compliance with the Court’s Order Issued on November 10, 2011 [Dkt. No. 475]Creditor’s Brief 17 in Compliance with the Court’s Order Issued on November 10, 2011 [Dkt. No. 478], Creditor’s 18 19 Motion Requesting Entry of Order [Dkt. No. 511], and Debtor’s Reply to Creditor’s Motion 20 Requesting Entry of Order [Dkt. No. 513]. For the reasons set forth below, Debtor’s automatic stay is 21 hereby LIFTEDas to this litigationto allow state court proceedings to continue. 22 23 I. Factual Background 24 25 Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on February 10, 2005.On February 4, 2009,the same day the order confirming Debtor's Plan of Reorganization was entered on the docket of the case, Creditor Sucesion Francisco PereaFerrer filed its Proof of Claim (“POC 20-1”).Shortly after, Debtor alleged that because the POC 20-1 was filed after the deadline, this Court should 1 disallow such claim. On December 29, 2009, this Court entered an order denying POC 20-1.Upon 2 Creditor’s appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”), the BAP 3 4 remanded this Court’s order to review the denial of POC 20-1 with the equitable standards set forth 5 in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited 6 Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). Accordingly, on March 9, 2011, this Court determined that POC 7 8 20-1 was timely filed under the Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 and Pioneer Investment Services Co. 9 Debtor’s second opposition to Creditor’s POC 20-1 and Creditor’s reply to the opposition followed. 10 On July 7, 2011, this Court asked the parties to file a pretrial report. On November 10, 2011, this 11 12 Court, under Judge Mildred Caban denied Debtor’s motion to strike the unauthorized amendment to 13 the POC 20-1 because the claim was converted from a secured to anunsecured claim.At the hearing, 14 Judge Caban also ordered the parties to submit briefs to this Court. On August 24, 2012, Judge 15 16 Cabanrecused herself from this instant matter. 17 18 II. Discussion and Analysis 19 After reviewing the parties’ arguments, and the relevant law, this Court finds that, the 20 21 question of whether POC 20-1 as amended should be allowed hinges largely on the Puerto Rico law 22 on the existence of Debtor’s obligations to the Creditor. This Court notes that the parties’ arguments 23 are citing and quoting largely from Puerto Rico case law and code. Additionally, this Court 24 25 recognizes that there are two pending cases against both the Debtor and Western Radiosonics Incorporated (Case No. I AC1993-0336 and I AC1993-0335) in front of the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, Superior Court of Mayaguez on the question of whether there was a breach of contract and accordingly whether damages should be rewarded if that breach is to be found. Parties have respectively filed necessary documents and the state court proceedings have been pending for ten 1 years and much of the discovery has beencompleted. Therefore, this Court, without delving into the 2 merits of the parties’ arguments, believes that cause existstomodifythe automatic stay to permit the 3 4 State Court Actions to proceed. IBM v. Fernstrom Storage and Van Co., 938 F.2d 731, 737 (7th 5 Cir.1991) (“[w]here the stayed non-bankruptcy litigation has reached an advanced stage, courts have 6 shown a willingness to lift the stay to allow the litigation to proceed.”); see generally,Crown Heights 7 8 Jewish Cmty. Council, Inc., v. Fischer (In re Fischer), 202 B.R. 341, 355 (E.D.N.Y.1996); In re Mid– 9 Atl. Handling Sys., L.L.C., 304 B.R. 111, 131 (Bankr.D.N.J.2003); Murray Indus., Inc. v. Aristech 10 Chem. Corp. (In re Murray Indus., Inc.), 121 B.R. 635, 637 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1990); In re Kaufman, 11 12 98 B.R. 214, 215 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1989); cf.In re Sonnax Indus., 907 F.2d at 1287 (decliningto lift 13 stay largelybecause “the litigation in state court has not progressed even to the discovery stage.”); 14 Arnold Dev., Inc., v. Collins (In re Collins), 118 B.R. 35, 38 (Bankr.D.Md.1990)(declining to lift 15 16 stay when the parties inthestate court proceeding had not yet begun discovery). 17 Thesuaspontelifting or modifying of the automatic stay authority that this Court draws upon 18 19 is well settled amongst courts in many of our sister Circuits.See e.g.,In re Bellucci, 119 B.R. 763, 20 779 (Bankr.E.D.Cal. 1990) (“The second sentence of section 105(a) is a rule of construction that, 21 22 when applied to section 362(d), compels the conclusion that a bankruptcy court can lift the automatic 23 stay suasponte. The revisionof the statute in 1986 effectively overruled prior decisions prohibiting a 24 court from acting sua sponte when the statute authorized a party in interest to raise an issue.”); 25 McDowell v. Stein, 415 B.R. 584 (S.D. Fla. 2009)(A bankruptcy court could lift automatic stay sua spontein order topermit appeals in state-court action against debtor to proceed.). This Court considers the factors for cause in modifying the automatic stay sua sponte. In determining whether the stay should be modified or terminated for cause, courts in the First Circuit 1 and other Circuits either (1) analyze the twelve factors enumerated by the Second Circuit in Sonnax; 2 or (2) engage in fact-intensive inquiries that appear to be outlining Sonnax factors, aiming to 3 4 maintain the prepetition status quo ante between the parties. In Re Sonnax Industries, Inc., 907 F.2d 5 1280, 1286 (2nd Cir.1990);See e.g.,C & A, S.E. v. Puerto Rico Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 369 B.R. 6 87, 94-95 (D.P.R. 2007); In re Burger Boys, Inc., 183 B.R. 682, 688 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Bison 7 8 Res., Inc., 230 B.R. 611, 613 (Bankr.N.D.Okla.1999); In re Odd's–N'End's, Inc., 171 B.R. 10, 11 9 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1994). However, some courts utilize a hybrid approach, combining these two 10 above methods of analysis.See, e.g.,In re Brown, 311 B.R. 409,412–13(“[a] court may consider the 11 12 policies reflected in the bankruptcy code, and the interests of the debtor, other creditors and any other 13 interested parties[in applying the Sonnax factors]”) (internal citations omitted). Regardless, the 14 Sonnax factor consists of the following: (1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete 15 16 resolution of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) 17 whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal 18 with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether the debtor's 19 20 insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action primarily involves 21 third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors; 22 (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination; 23 24 (9) whether movant's success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the 25 debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and (12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286. Accordingly, this Court shall determine whether to modifythe automatic stay to permit the 1 state court litigationsto proceed, which will likely (1) determine both parties' rights and obligations 2 under the 1986 contract;(2) determine whetherunder Puerto Rico law there is a valid contract;and, 3 4 (3) determine the correct parties in owing such obligation under a valid contract, if any. 5 In applying theSonnaxfactors, bankruptcy courts have also lifted the stay on the ground that 6 state courts are the appropriate forum to adjudicateclaims involving possible fraud. See e.g.,In re 7 8 Bison Res., Inc., 230 B.R. 611, 613 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1999)(state court is the appropriate forum to 9 litigate lease fraud); see alsoIn Burger Boys, 183 B.R. at 684. Accordingly, in this instant case, after 10 applying the Sonnaxfactors, this Court deems that justice would be best served by having the parties 11 12 litigate in the pending civil action in the Mayaguez Superior Court.This Court determinesthat doing 13 so would not only adequately resolve this instant issue in regards to the obligations, if any,at hand 14 but would also advance jurisdictional independence, judicial economy, equitability and the twin 15 16 goals of the Bankruptcy Code of benefitting both parties. In exercising a fact intensive inquiry 17 similar to the Sonnax analysis with a specific focuson judicial economy and efficiency, this Court 18 reaches the same conclusion of modifyingthe automatic stay to permit the state action to proceed. 19 20 III. Conclusion 21 Upon either party prevailing in state court, there still may be bankruptcy law issues to be 22 decided in front of this Court within this bankruptcy proceeding. However, in light of judicial 23 24 economy, after a state court finding, this Court strongly encourages parties to stipulate to an 25 agreement for any subsequent issues. Either party is free to move for further relief as necessary if such agreement cannot be reached. WHEREFORE, Debtor’s bankruptcy automatic stay is hereby modifiedfor thesolepurpose of continuing the state court proceedingsin casesnumbered:I AC1993-0336 and I AC1993-0335,in 1 || front of the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, Superior Court of Mayaguez in order to obtain final unappealable judgment in favor of one of the parties. The judgment will then be referred bac
4 ||to this Bankruptcy Court for adjudication. The Debtor’s Objection to Proof of Claim 20-1 a || amended [Dkt. No. 429] is held in abeyance until such time as the state court judgment is obtained| SO ORDERED
9 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28th day of June, 2013. 9 10 11 . aD Se Vike 13 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25