Stern v. Snyder (In Re Vic Snyder, Inc.)

22 B.R. 332, 6 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1348, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 3588
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided August 5, 1982·No. 15-16713·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

OPINION

WILLIAM A. KING, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

This case appears before this Court on several motions raised in an adversary proceeding removed to this Court from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Bruce Stern, a judgment creditor of the underlying Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession, filed a complaint in equity against the Sny-ders and the Continos, alleged principals of the debtor, in state court. Subsequently, the proceeding was removed to the Bankruptcy Court upon application of the Sny-ders. The Continos have consented to the removal. Numerous motions have been filed by the plaintiff, the Snyders, and the Chapter 11 debtor in both this and state court. Several hearings were held and the Court reserved decision on several issues. 1

The plaintiff has requested this Court to remand the case to state court. In support of this application, plaintiff asserts that the case was improvidently removed under the Bankruptcy Rules, in that the application was not made in a timely fashion and was made without notice to the plaintiff.

Initially, the Court notes that removal pursuant to Interim Local Rule 7004 is a matter of right and does not require either prior notice or permission of the Court. Removal is automatic if an application is timely filed. 2 Notice is only required after removal is effected. 3 The Snyders, *334 personally, sought removal. The Court Ordered the Snyders to post a bond pursuant to Rule 7004. 4 The bond was duly filed. The Court, therefore, finds that removal was proper and the application for remand will be denied.

Default judgment was entered against Victor M. Snyder in state court immediately prior to removal of the case to this Court. A petition 5 to open this judgment was filed in the state court and, consequently, arose as an issue upon removal of the case to this Court. 6 At the hearing on this motion, the arguments of counsel focused on the proper law which the court should apply in considering whether this default judgment should be vacated.

Counsel for the plaintiff asserts that this Court must apply state law in determining the propriety of the default judgment. Counsel for the Snyders, on the other hand, urges the Court to consider the motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to the Local Interim Rules, Part VII of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure apply in a proceeding removed to the Bankruptcy Court. 7

Bankruptcy Rule 755 provides that the Court may set aside a judgment entered by default in accordance with the provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 924. 8 Under Rule 924, Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is made applicable to the Bankruptcy Court. 9

The plaintiff has urged this Court to deny the motion to open the default judgment on the basis that the Snyders have not complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 209. This failure, purportedly, prohibits the Court from opening the judgment. The Court, however, has determined that these Rules are not applicable to the case at bar.

The Court, therefore, will schedule an evidentiary hearing to consider the merits of the motion to vacate the default judgment. Counsel for all the parties are well aware of the nature of this case. Only testimony germane to the issue at bar will be entertained by this Court. Argument or testimony on any other aspect of the case would not be necessary.

The Court also notes that the motion of the Chapter 11 debtor to intervene in this action has been continued pending disposition of other issues herein. The issue originally raised in state court and memoranda of law were filed with the Prothonotary. 10 If the parties wish to supplement these *335 memoranda with additional authority, they must file supplemental memoranda within ten (10) days of this Opinion.

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

Stern v. Snyder (In Re Vic Snyder, Inc.), 22 B.R. 332, 6 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1348, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 3588 (Pa. 1982).

22 B.R. 332 (Stern v. Snyder (In Re Vic Snyder, Inc.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commercial Banking Corp. v. Miller (In Re Miller)
90 B.R. 762 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
SCK Corp. v. Rosenblum (In Re SCK Corp.)
54 B.R. 165 (D. New Jersey, 1984)
C.I.T. Corp. v. CAD-M Co. (In re Wright)
36 B.R. 101 (S.D. Ohio, 1983)
Matter of Wright
36 B.R. 101 (S.D. Ohio, 1983)
Stern v. Snyder (In re Vic Snyder, Inc.)
23 B.R. 679 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)