Dawn Sherrese Robinson

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re
DAWN SHERRESE ROBINSON,
Debtor.
Case No. 2:13-bk-18723-RK
Chapter 7
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
DECISION ON EX PARTE MOTION
OF DEBTOR TO RECONSIDER
RAND MARLIS TRUST’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM THE
AUTOMATIC STAY
By separate order, the court denies the ex parte motion of debtor Lisa
Sherrese Robinson to reconsider Rand Marlis Trust’s motion for relief from the
automatic stay. This statement of decision sets forth the reasons for denial of the
motion for reconsideration.
On May 21, 2013, the court conducted a hearing on the motion for relief
from the automatic stay filed by debtor’s landlord, Rand & Jane Marlis Family
Trust, regarding the residential condominium rented by debtor from the landlord,
FILED & ENTERED
MAY 28 2013
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	bakchell
Case 2:13-bk-18723-RK Doc 25 Filed 05/28/13 Entered 05/28/13 12:52:06 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1) and (2), or to confirm that the stay was not in
effect pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(22). At the hearing, the court heard from the
parties, including counsel for the movant and debtor who was self-represented.
After hearing from the parties, the court orally granted the motion that the stay was
not in effect pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(22), or that if it was, relief from stay
was appropriate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). Before any written
order was entered pursuant to the court’s oral ruling, on May 23, 2013, debtor filed
the instant ex parte motion for reconsideration. Because the motion for
reconsideration is procedurally and substantively deficient on its face, the court
dispenses with the need for any opposition by the landlord, the stay relief movant,
and with the need for oral argument, and now rules on the motion.
Debtor’s motion for reconsideration should be denied because: (1) the
motion may not be considered ex parte because it violates Rule 9013-1 of the
Local Bankruptcy Rules, requiring notice and hearing on the motion 21 days in
advance of the hearing; (2) the motion for reconsideration asserts the same
grounds in opposition to the landlord’s stay relief motion and cites no new
evidence, change in the law or other grounds which may constitute a proper basis
for reconsideration under Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, incorporating by reference, Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; (3) in deciding whether or not automatic stay relief should be granted,
or whether the stay is in effect, this bankruptcy court only determines whether the
movant has a colorable claim to enforce a right against property of the bankruptcy
estate rather than determining the merits of any claim or defense of the movant or
the party opposing stay relief, Veal v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,
(In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897, 914-915 (9th Cir. BAP 2011)(citations omitted); (4)
whether debtor has valid grounds to set aside a default judgment in the unlawful
detainer action of the landlord may be considered by the state court which entered
the judgment; (5) the landlord had a colorable claim to stay relief because (a) the
Case 2:13-bk-18723-RK Doc 25 Filed 05/28/13 Entered 05/28/13 12:52:06 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
landlord presented evidence that debtor was delinquent in paying rent on the
condominium rented by debtor, (b) the landlord obtained an unlawful detainer
judgment from the state court prepetition against the debtor for possession of the
residential rental property, (3) the debtor made an ineffective tender of rent for
purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(22) by tendered a rental payment check to the
court for the landlord for postpetition rent, which was not only insufficient in
amount, but was dishonored, see also, 11 U.S.C. § 362(l)(1)(A) and (B), and (c)
the debtor as a tenant has no equity in the subject property and the property is not
necessary for any reorganization of the debtor because this bankruptcy case is a
Chapter 7 liquidation case; and (6) debtor’s moving and reconsideration papers do
not meet debtor’s burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(2)that stay relief
should be denied.
Accordingly, the court denies debtor’s ex parte motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
###
Date: May 28, 2013
Case 2:13-bk-18723-RK Doc 25 Filed 05/28/13 Entered 05/28/13 12:52:06 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF ENTERED ORDER AND SERVICE LIST
Notice is given by the court that a judgment or order entitled (specify) ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION OF DEBTOR TO RECONSIDER RAND MARLIS TRUST’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE
AUTOMATIC STAY was entered on the date indicated as “Entered” on the first page of this judgment or
order and will be served in the manner indicated below:
I. SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”) – Pursuant to controlling
General Order(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s), the foregoing document was served on the following
person(s) by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the judgment or order. As of May 28, 2013, the following
person(s) are currently on the Electronic Mail Notice List for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding
to receive NEF transmission at the email address(es) indicated below:
Elissa Miller (TR) CA71@ecfcbis.com, MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com
United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov
Carol G Unruh cgunruh@sbcglobal.net
II. SERVED BY THE COURT VIA U.S. MAIL: A copy of this notice and a true copy of this judgment or
order was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the
address(es) indicated below:
Debtor:
Dawn Sherrese Robinson
6400 Pacific Ave # 105
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
III. TO BE SERVED BY THE LODGING PARTY: Within 72 hours after receipt of a copy of this judgment or
order which bears an “Entered” stamp, the party lodging the judgment or order will serve a complete copy
bearing an “Entered” stamp by U.S. Mail, overnight mail, facsimile transmission or email and file a proof of
service of the entered order on the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the address(es), facsimile
transmission number(s) and/or email address(es) indicated below:
Case 2:13-bk-18723-RK Doc 25 Filed 05/28/13 Entered 05/28/13 12:52:06 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 4