Rozich v. MTC Financial Incorporated

Opinion

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

9 Robert Rozich, No. CV-23-00210-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 MTC Financial Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of bankruptcy filing, informing the Court 16 that Plaintiff “has filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court, for 17 the District of Arizona, thereby invoking the provisions of the Automatic Stay under § 362 18 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362.” (Doc. 52 at 1.) Plaintiff “requests this Court 19 stay this matter.” (Id. at 2.) 20 A petition for bankruptcy “operates as a stay” as to, inter alia, “the commencement 21 or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the 22 debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case 23 under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the 24 commencement of the [bankruptcy case].” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (emphasis added). “The 25 policy behind § 362 is to protect the estate from being depleted by creditors’ lawsuits and 26 seizures of property in order to provide the debtor breathing room to reorganize.” In re 27 Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC, 423 B.R. 655, 663 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009). 28 “Although the scope of the automatic stay is broad, it does not stay all proceedings. ... [T]he automatic stay has been found inapplicable to lawsuits initiated by the debtor.”! 2|| Id. See also In re Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC, 654 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The || [automatic] stay does not prevent a plaintiff/debtor from continuing to prosecute its own 4|| claims nor does it prevent a defendant from protecting its interests against claims brought || by the debtor. This is true, even if the defendant’s successful defense will result in the loss 6|| of an allegedly valuable claim asserted by the debtor.”) (citation omitted); In re Merrick, 175 B.R. 333, 338 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994) (“While it is true that a successful defense to a 8 || lawsuit eliminates its alleged value, this results in no loss to the estate, as ... [t]here can 9|| be no loss of what does not exist.’’). 10 There is no automatic stay of this action, nor has Plaintiff provided any alternative 11 || grounds in support of his request to stay this matter. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to stay this action (Doc. 53) is denied. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for First Citizens Bank & Trust 15 || Company to file a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss (Doc. 50) 1s sua sponte 16 || extended one business day, from today, May 3, 2024, to Monday, May 6, 2024. 17 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2024. 18 19 Lom ee” 20 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 71 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27} 1 In “cases in which the debtor and the adverse party have claims against one 28|| (Sth Cir, 1995), Here, there are no counterclaims, cross claims, or thire-pariy claims—i.e. no claims against the debtor or the estate.

_2-