Thompson v. Great American Life Insurance Company

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
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
MORLEY P. THOMPSON, SR., No. 04-11142
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
KATHARINE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff(s),
v. A.P. No. 06-1065
GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________________/
Memorandum and Order
_________________
The court admits to being confused by defendant’s application to vacate the order to show cause
in this case, as defendant has not submitted to this court the basis upon which the District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio has allegedly made a ruling regarding the automatic stay in a case pending in
this court. This court can only respectfully point out the following:
1. Once a bankruptcy is filed, fraudulent conveyance claims become property of the estate. In re
MortgageAmerica Corp., 714 F.2d 1266, 1276 (5th Cir. 1983). Any attempt by an individual creditor to
Entered on Docket
March 31, 2006
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 06-01065 Doc# 13 Filed: 03/31/06 Entered: 03/31/06 11:15:34 Page 1 of 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
2
prosecute such an action is an attempt to exercise control over estate property and violates § 362(a)(3)
of the Bankruptcy Code. Id.
2. Actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are generally void. In re Sambo’s
Restaurants, Inc., 754 F.2d 811, 816 (9th Cir. 1985).
3. Assuming that a district court may make a ruling concerning the automatic stay in a bankruptcy
case not before it, the stay protects the bankruptcy estate so the bankruptcy trustee is an essential party to
any ruling regarding the automatic stay.
4. A bankruptcy stay generally prohibits parties from seeking relief from district courts in other
jurisdictions. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403, 63 USLW
4269, 32 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 685, 31 Fed.R.Serv.3d 355, 27 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 93 (1995).
5. It appears that the District Court could lift the automatic stay or determine it did not apply if
the reference of the bankruptcy case was withdrawn to the district court for this district and the case then
transferred to the Southern District of Ohio.
That having been noted (for what it is worth), it is clear that plaintiff filed this adversary
proceeding in violation of an order of a United States District Court. Accordingly, and for that reason
alone, the court GRANTS the ex parte application of defendant and VACATES the order to show cause.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2006
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 06-01065 Doc# 13 Filed: 03/31/06 Entered: 03/31/06 11:15:34 Page 2 of 2