Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc

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
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	) Bankruptcy Case
) No. 10-11194DM
SHELDON DAMIAN SMITH, 	)
)
Debtor. 	) Chapter 13
___________________________________)
SHELDON DAMIAN SMITH, 	) Adversary Proceeding
) No. 11-1041DM
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.,)
a California corporation, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY
On August 8, 2011, the court held a trial in this adversary
proceeding. 	At the conclusion of trial the court announced its
findings of fact on the record, 1 including a finding that
Defendant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. (“Kaiser”) had
violated the automatic stay. 	The court took under advisement the
issue of whether Plaintiff Sheldon Damian Smith (“Smith”) had
established that he was entitled to damages for emotional distress
resulting from that violation. 	He had proven no other actual
1 As authorized under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052.
-1-
Signed and Filed: August 19, 2011
________________________________________
DENNIS MONTALI
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
August 19, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-01041 Doc# 37 Filed: 08/19/11 Entered: 08/19/11 15:52:54 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
27
28
damages.
In In re Dawson, 390 F.3d 1139, 1149 (9th Cir. 2004), the
Ninth Circuit held that “to be entitled to damages for emotional
distress under [11 U.S.C.] § 362(h) [now § 362(k)], an individual
must (1) suffer significant harm, (2) clearly establish the
significant harm, and (3) demonstrate a causal connection between
that significant harm and the violation of the automatic stay (as
distinct, for instance, from the anxiety and pressures inherent in
the bankruptcy process).” 	Debtor has not sufficiently proven the
existence of any of these elements.
“Fleeting or trivial anxiety or distress does not suffice to
support an award [for violation of the automatic stay]; instead,
an individual must suffer significant emotional harm.” 	Id.
Debtor testified that he suffered general anxiety and trouble
sleeping. 	However, at the same time he received the letters from
Kaiser, his home was subject to some sort of improper foreclosure
and another creditor possibly violated the automatic stay. 	Debtor
did not demonstrate that the anxiety and sleeplessness were due to
the correspondence from Kaiser. 	In other words, he did not
demonstrate a causal connection between significant harm (if any)
and the violation of the automatic stay. 	Under Dawson, damages
cannot be awarded given this lack of nexus.
From the foregoing the court concludes as a matter of law
that Plaintiff may not recover anything from Defendant in this
action. 	Counsel for Defendant should submit a form of judgment in
its favor, with each side to bear its own costs. 	Counsel should
comply with B.L.R. 9021-1.
**END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION**
-2-
Case: 11-01041 Doc# 37 Filed: 08/19/11 Entered: 08/19/11 15:52:54 Page 2 of 2