In re: Abass Yaya Bamba

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 25-cv-00655-PAB
(Bankr. No. 24-11589)
In re:
Abass Yaya Bamba,
Debtor.
ABASS YAYA BAMBA,
Appellant,
v.
DOMINION FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Appellee.
ORDER
The matter before the Court is appellant’s Motion for Immediate Sanctions and
Court Intervention Against Dominion Financial Services, LLC and its Counsel [Docket
No. 11]. 1
Appellant claims appellee and its counsel “are actively undermining the appellate
process, abusing procedural rules, and exploiting Appellant’s pro se status to gain an
unfair advantage.” Id. at 1. Appellant argues that appellee has engaged in
1 Because appellant is pro se, the Court construes his filings liberally without serving as
his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Although
styled as a letter, appellant’s filing “request[s] that the Court appoint pro bono counsel to
assist [appellant] in this appeal.” Docket No. 8 at 1. Therefore, the Court construed the
appellant’s filing as a motion for appointment of counsel.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 33 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
sanctionable conduct by “intentionally creating parallel litigation to confuse, delay, and
wear down the Appellant, fully aware that he is not represented by counsel and lacks
the institutional resources available to Dominion and its attorneys.” Id. Specifically,
appellant asserts that his appeal divested the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction in this
case. Id. at 2 (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)).
Nevertheless, he claims that the bankruptcy proceedings in this case are ongoing and
that appellee has filed a motion to dismiss in the bankruptcy court. Id. He claims that
by filing a motion to dismiss in the bankruptcy court, appellee has engaged in
sanctionable conduct. Id. In addition to sanctions, appellant requests that the Court
stay the proceedings in the bankruptcy court until this appeal has been resolved. Id. at
2.
Appellee responds that the motion for sanctions “must be denied because it is
procedurally improper and substantively without merit.” Docket No. 17 at 2.
Procedurally, appellee claims that appellant failed to serve the motion for sanctions at
least 21 days before filing the motion with the Court, and that appellant did not conduct
service in accordance with Rule 7004. Id. Further, appellee notes the motion for
sanctions does not identify how appellee violated Rule 9011 and misrepresents
appellee’s actions. Id. at 2-3. As to appellant’s request to stay the bankruptcy case,
appellee notes that appellant has failed to comply with the requirements outlined in Rule
8007. Id. at 4-5.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(c)(1)(A) provides that a motion for
sanctions shall “describe the specific conduct alleged to violate [Rule 9011(b)]” and
shall “be served under Rule 7004.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(2)(A). Further, “[t]he
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 33 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
motion for sanctions must not be filed or presented to the court if the challenged
document, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately
corrected within 21 days after the motion was served (or within another period as the
court may order).” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(2)(B). The Court has inherent powers to
issue sanctions when a party acts in bad faith. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,
50 (1991).
Appellant’s reliance on Griggs is misplaced. Although filing a timely notice of
appeal divests a lower court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed, “the [lower] court
retains jurisdiction to proceed with matters not involved in that appeal.” Garcia v.
Burlington N. R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir. 1987). Appellant has only
appealed the bankruptcy court’s order overruling his claim objection. Appellant has not
shown that appellee’s motion to dismiss is improper because it pertains to matters
currently on appeal or that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the motion
to dismiss. Therefore, appellant has failed to identify bad faith conduct on the part of
appellee. The Court will deny the motion for sanctions.
As to a motion to stay proceedings in the bankruptcy court, Rule 8007 provides
that, ordinarily, a party must first file the motion to stay with the bankruptcy court. Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 8007(a)(1)(A). If a party files a motion to stay the bankruptcy court
proceedings in the district court, the motion must “(A) show that moving first in the
bankruptcy court would be impracticable; or (B) if a motion has already been made in
the bankruptcy court, state whether the court has ruled on it, and if so, state any
reasons given for the ruling.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(b)(2). Appellant has failed to
meet the requirements for a stay under Rule 8007 because his motion does not identify
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 33 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
whether he has filed a motion to stay with the bankruptcy court and, if so, how the court
ruled on the motion. See Docket No. 11. Moreover, appellant has failed to demonstrate
why the Court should stay bankruptcy court proceedings that are unrelated to his
appeal.
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that appellant’s Motion for Immediate Sanctions and Court
Intervention Against Dominion Financial Services, LLC and its Counsel [Docket No. 11]
is DENIED.
Dated: April 15, 2025
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
__________________________________
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 33 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4