Kevin Ramsey

This memorandum of opinion is not intended for publication.1
See Minutes of Proceeding, Adv. No. 11-1057, docket 21.2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In re: ) Case No. 10-16609
)
KEVIN RAMSEY, ) Chapter 7
)
Debtor. ) Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren
)
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
) AND ORDER1
Prepetition, Jacqueline Fort filed a lawsuit against debtor Kevin Ramsey and his company
Trademark Windows & Doors, Inc. (Trademark) in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas:
Fort v. Trademark Windows & Doors, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-09-706318 (the lawsuit). After
Mr. Ramsey filed his bankruptcy case, Ms. Fort filed an adversary proceeding in this court
asserting essentially the same claims against Mr. Ramsey and requesting a determination that the
debt is not dischargeable: Fort v. Ramsey, Adv. No. 11-1057. Ms. Fort asks this court to lift the
stay so that she may proceed with the lawsuit, and Mr. Ramsey opposes the request. (Docket 81,
86). The parties submitted the matter for decision on the filings.2
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and General Order No. 84 entered by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and this is a core proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (I). This decision is within this court’s constitutional authority as
analyzed by the Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall, 79 U.S.L.W. 4564 (U.S. 2011).
10-16609-pmc Doc 88 FILED 07/07/11 ENTERED 07/07/11 16:57:23 Page 1 of 6

The case was dismissed on the trustee’s motion and then reinstated to allow Mr.3
Ramsey to convert it. Docket 37, 42, 46. Ms. Fort does not dispute that reinstatement also
reimposed the automatic stay.
2
DISCUSSION
A. Factual Background
On October 8, 2009, Ms. Fort filed the lawsuit against Mr. Ramsey and Trademark
asserting claims for violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, breach of contract, and
fraud/misrepresentation. The lawsuit alleges that Trademark and Mr. Ramsey are fundamentally
indistinguishable, that Mr. Ramsey did not follow corporate formalities, that Mr. Ramsey
exercised control over Trademark to commit fraud, and that the corporate veil should be pierced
and personal liability imposed on Mr. Ramsey. The state court entered a default judgment
against Trademark in the amount of $29,000.00.
On July 6, 2010, Mr. Ramsey filed a chapter 13 case, which he later converted to chapter
7. The automatic stay currently prevents Ms. Fort from proceeding with her lawsuit against him.3
11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). On March 14, 2011, Ms. Fort filed her adversary proceeding in which she
requests a judgment against Mr. Ramsey and a determination that the judgment debt is not
dischargeable under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2). Mr. Ramsey filed an amended answer and a
counterclaim for civil harassment.
B. Relief From Stay
Ms. Fort requests relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1) which provides for
relief “for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property[.]” 11
U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). The word “cause” is not defined beyond the reference to lack of adequate
protection. “Although cause is not defined . . . , Congress did intend that the automatic stay be
10-16609-pmc Doc 88 FILED 07/07/11 ENTERED 07/07/11 16:57:23 Page 2 of 6

Mr. Ramsey argues that Ms. Fort bears the burden of proof; however, the party4
opposing relief from stay bears the burden of proof on all issues except for the issue of the
debtor’s equity in real property. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g).
3
lifted to allow litigation involving the debtor to continue in nonbankruptcy forums under certain
circumstances.” In re United Imps., Inc., 203 B.R. 162, 166 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1996) (citing
legislative history). The decision whether to grant relief for cause is within this court’s sound
discretion and is to be made based on the facts of the case. Laguna Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re Laguna Assocs. Ltd. P’ship), 30 F.3d 734, 737 (6th Cir. 1994).4
To determine whether cause exists to allow litigation involving a debtor to proceed in a
non-bankruptcy forum, this court must “balance the potential prejudice to the debtor, to the
bankruptcy estate, and to the other creditors against the hardship to the moving party if [she] is
not allowed to proceed[.]” Wiley v. Hartzler (In re Wiley), 288 B.R. 818, 822 (B. A. P. 8th Cir.
2003); see also In re Laguna Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 30 F.3d at 737 (noting that § 362(d)
provides for relief from stay because the automatic stay provisions “may impose unfair hardship
on particular creditors”). A number of different factors may be considered on this issue. See, for
example, Garzoni v. K-Mart Corp. (In re Garzoni), 35 Fed. Appx. 179, 181 (6th Cir. 2002)
(unpublished) (listing factors to be considered); Sonnax Indus., Inc. v. Tri Component Prods.
Corp. (In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.), 907 F.2d 1280, 1286 (2d Cir. 1990) (discussing the factors to
be weighed in deciding whether litigation should be permitted to continue against a debtor);
Robbins v. Robbins (In re Robbins), 964 F.2d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 1992) (listing factors that courts
consider on this issue).
Relevant factors include:(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution
of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3)
10-16609-pmc Doc 88 FILED 07/07/11 ENTERED 07/07/11 16:57:23 Page 3 of 6

United States Trustee v. Ramsey, Adv. No. 11-1101 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio).5
4
whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized
tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether
the debtor's insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action
primarily involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the
interests of other creditors; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is
subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant's success in the other proceeding would
result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the
expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in
the other proceeding; and (12) the impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms. In
re United Imps., Inc., 203 B.R. at 166-67; In re Lamberjack, 149 B.R. 467, 470 (Bankr. N.D.
Ohio 1992). Additional factors include: whether the litigation involves other parties over which
the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction; whether the creditor has a probability of success on the
merits; and whether the interests of the debtor and the estate will be better served by resolution of
threshold bankruptcy issues before addressing the forum issue. In re United Imps., Inc., 203 B.R.
at 167.
In this case, the interests of judicial economy factor weighs in favor of lifting the stay
because the lawsuit was pending in the state court for almost a year before the debtor’s
bankruptcy case was filed, the state court is familiar with the state law claims, and the state court
previously entered default judgment against the co-defendant, Trademark. The fact that the
United States trustee has filed a proceeding seeking to deny Mr. Ramsey a discharge provides
further support for relief under this factor. If the UST is successful, Ms. Fort’s request for a5
10-16609-pmc Doc 88 FILED 07/07/11 ENTERED 07/07/11 16:57:23 Page 4 of 6

5
dischargeability determination will become moot. In that event, permitting the lawsuit to
proceed in state court will prevent wasted effort establishing the debt in this court. Although Mr.
Ramsey argues that judicial economy weighs against granting relief because Ms. Fort’s claims
lack merit, the merits of the claims have not yet been determined and this court does not have
sufficient information from which to draw a conclusion as to whether Ms. Fort is likely to
prevail.
Mr. Ramsey argues that the balance of the harm and trial readiness factors weigh against
granting relief. He contends that he will be harmed because he represents himself in this
adversary proceeding and is familiar with the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules. In
contrast, he is not familiar with Ohio law and rules and will have to hire an attorney if the lawsuit
goes forward in state court. This argument is not persuasive because, regardless of where the
dispute is litigated, Ohio law will determine whether there is a debt and, if so, in what amount.
Consequently, the balance of the harm factor does not weigh either for or against granting relief.
Similarly, the fact that the lawsuit is not ready for trial in state court does not weigh either for or
against granting relief because the lawsuit is not ready for trial in either forum.
On consideration of the relevant factors, the court finds that relief from stay is appropriate
to permit the lawsuit to proceed in state court.
CONCLUSION
Ms. Fort’s motion for relief from stay is granted to permit her to proceed against debtor
Kevin Ramsey in the lawsuit. This court will hold Ms. Fort’s adversary proceeding in abeyance
until after the state court determines the underlying claims. At that point, this court will
10-16609-pmc Doc 88 FILED 07/07/11 ENTERED 07/07/11 16:57:23 Page 5 of 6

6
determine whether the debt, if any, is dischargeable. The parties are to file a joint report by
November 1, 2011 as to the status of the state court lawsuit. Based on that report, this court will
either set a date for filing another status report or will set a pretrial hearing in the adversary
proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren
United States Bankruptcy Judge
10-16609-pmc Doc 88 FILED 07/07/11 ENTERED 07/07/11 16:57:23 Page 6 of 6