State of Nevada v. Bernard-Ex

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02114
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-2114-JAD-DJA State of Nevada, 4 Plaintiff 5 v. Order Denying Motion to Stay 6 Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, [ECF Nos. 9, 10] 7 Defendant 8

9 Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, who claims he’s a “tax-exempt,” “free sovereign American 10 Citizen and ‘nonresident alien,’” commenced this proceeding as a purported “removal” of a Las 11 Vegas Justice Court Case against him1 and seeks an award of $38.5 million in damages for his 12 alleged “false arrest” and various other torts and constitutional violations.2 Although Bernard- 13 Ex captioned this case with himself as the defendant, it was he who initiated it. He now moves 14 to stay this case, arguing that his filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 15 2024, triggered an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).3 16 But the automatic stay does not work that way. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that the 17 stay provided by § 362 “does not prevent a plaintiff/debtor from continuing to prosecute its own 18 claims nor does it prevent a defendant from protecting its interests against claims brought by the 19 debtor.”4 “This is true, even if the defendant’s successful defense will result in the loss of an 20 21 1 See ECF No. 1-4 at 5 (referencing Justice Court Case No. 17 F17046X). 22 2 Id. 23 3 ECF Nos. 9, 10. It appears that the motion was filed twice. 4 In re Palmdale Hills Property, LLC, 654 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2011). 1|| allegedly valuable claim asserted by the debtor.”°> So, because Bernard-Ex initiated this action, 2|| and there are no claims in this case against him, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay this case based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) [ECF Nos. 9, 10] is DENIED. ; puns US. District Judgé JenniferA. Dorsey 6 January 7, 2025 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 > Td.