Bruce Allan Blankenhorn

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. 11-31835
) 	Chapter 7
BRUCE ALLAN BLANKENHORN, 	)
)
)
Debtor. 	)
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM RE DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Upon due consideration, and for reasons stated below, the
court denies Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s
June 19, 2011 Order Granting Motion for Relief From Automatic Stay.
This memorandum shall constitute the court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
FACTS
On May 11, 2011, Debtor filed the above-captioned, no-asset
chapter 7 bankruptcy case. 	On May 17, 2011, Daniel J. Rosenbledt,
Trustee of the Rosenbledt PTE Trust Dated March 15, 2000 (Movant),
filed and served a motion for relief from stay (the Motion). 	The
Motion sought complete relief from the automatic stay to initiate
and complete eviction proceedings against Debtor and other
occupants of the real property commonly known as 990 Avenue
Alhambra, El Granada, San Mateo County, California 94018 (the
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION 	-1-
Signed and Filed: July 12, 2011
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
July 13, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-31835 Doc# 37 Filed: 07/12/11 Entered: 07/13/11 11:15:57 Page 1 of 5

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
Property). 	The Motion also sought a waiver of the stay created by
Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 4001(a)(3). 	The request for judicial notice
in support of the Motion attached a true and correct copy of: (1) a
trustee’s deed upon sale re Property, listing Movant as the grantee
and recorded on February 23, 2011; and (2) an unlawful detainer
judgment entered by the San Mateo County Superior Court on April
27, 2011, which authorizes Movant to recover possession of the
Property from Debtor.
On May 25, 2011, Debtor filed opposition to the Motion,
questioning the legality of the foreclosure process. 	Debtor also
appeared at the hearing on the Motion, held May 31, 2011, and
argued that the Motion should be denied to irregularities in the
foreclosure process. 	Debtor did not object to the motion to waive
the provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 4001(a)(3).
At the hearing on the Motion held May 31, 2011, the court
overruled Debtor’s objections and directed Movant to lodge an
order: (1) granting relief from stay, nunc pro tunc to May 31,
2011, to complete efforts to obtain possession of the Property,
provided that no physical eviction occurred prior to June 13, 2011;
(2) waiving the provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 4001(a)(3); and
(3) granting in rem relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4). 	On
June 20, 2011, the court entered an order consistent with its oral
ruling at the May 31st hearing.
On June 24, 2011, Debtor filed a motion for reconsideration,
arguing that the Motion failed to disclose Debtor’s substantial
equity in the Property at the time of the foreclosure sale, and
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION 	-2-
Case: 11-31835 Doc# 37 Filed: 07/12/11 Entered: 07/13/11 11:15:57 Page 2 of 5

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
that there was no basis to waive the stay created by Fed. R. Bankr.
Proc. 4001(a)(3) or to grant in rem relief.
LAW
Reconsideration and amendment of an order is “an extraordinary
remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources. . . [and] should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district
court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear
error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law.” 	Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877,
890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
The motion for reconsideration must be denied, because, as to
Movant’s efforts to obtain possession the Property, continuation of
the automatic stay does not further either of the two legitimate
bankruptcy purposes of the automatic stay in a chapter 7 case:
to protect the assets of the estate from dissipation; and to
protect the Debtor, prior to entry of a discharge, from creditor
action to enforce pre-petition claims for in personam liability.
It was not appropriate to continue the stay to protect the assets
of the estate, because (1) the Property was foreclosed upon by
Movant prepetition; (2) an unlawful detainer judgment granted
Movant the right to possession of the Property; 1/ and (3) the
trustee, who is the legal representative of the bankruptcy estate,
did not assert any interest in the Property or oppose the motion
1/ This court lacks the power to review the state court’s
judgment. 	E.g. Dubinka v. Judges of Sup. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 221
(9th Cir. 1994) (“Federal courts may exercise only original
jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over
state court decisions.”).
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION 	-3-
Case: 11-31835 Doc# 37 Filed: 07/12/11 Entered: 07/13/11 11:15:57 Page 3 of 5

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
for relief from stay. 	Continuation of the stay is not necessary to
protect Debtor against in personam liability, because the Order
only permits Movant to obtain possession of the Property, and does
not permit the enforcement of any in personam claim against Debtor.
Accordingly, the court properly granted the Motion.
The court’s termination of the 14-day stay 2/ was an exercise of
discretion that the court does not see fit to alter at this time.
The court also notes that the Order did bar Movant from evicting
Debtor from the Property for fourteen days after the date the
hearing.
The court’s award of in rem relief was proper because, as to
the interests of the Debtor and the estate in the Property, and for
the reasons stated above, there is no bankruptcy purpose to
permitting the automatic stay to apply to Movant’s efforts to
recover possession of the Property.
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
2/ Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 4001(a)(3).
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION 	-4-
Case: 11-31835 Doc# 37 Filed: 07/12/11 Entered: 07/13/11 11:15:57 Page 4 of 5

COURT SERVICE LIST
Bruce Allan Blankenhorn
990 Avenue Alhambra
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Case: 11-31835 Doc# 37 Filed: 07/12/11 Entered: 07/13/11 11:15:57 Page 5 of 5