Michael Joseph Sindram

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 08-00559
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE "VERIFIED
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AND CONTEMPT MOTION; MOTION FOR FED. R.
CIV. P. 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL”
The debtor Sindram obtained a discharge on January 23, 2009,
and on February 6, 2009, the court closed the case, such that the
automatic stay no longer barred enforcement by Chase Home Finance
LLC of its lien against the debtor’s real property. 	The court
reopened the case, but for the limited purpose of addressing a
contempt motion Sindram had filed against his condo association.
Sindram has filed a document titled "Verified Adversary
Proceeding and Contempt Motion; Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 65
Injunctive Relief; Motion for Appointment of Counsel" docketed as
Dkt. No. 269 in this case, and not docketed as an adversary
proceeding. 	The document seeks an injunction against a
foreclosure sale by Chase Home Finance LLC pending adjudication
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: January 28, 2010.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 08-00559 Doc 275 Filed 01/28/10 Entered 01/28/10 09:22:03 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 6

2
of his request to hold Chase in contempt for having violated the
automatic stay. 	He appears to want to defend against a
foreclosure sale by setting off any contempt damages awarded
against Chase against the debt owed Chase.
I
Sindram has not filed a motion to enlarge the reopening of
the case to permit the pursuit of relief requested in the
document he filed against Chase. 	The decision whether to reopen
a case rests in the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court.
II
There is no reason to permit Sindram to obtain an
enlargement of the reopening of the case to permit pursuit of
injunctive relief. 	After Sindram obtained a discharge, this
bankruptcy case was largely at an end. 	Sindram’s discharge
relieved him of dischargeable unsecured debts, but not from
enforcement of liens, and upon the closing of the case, there was
no impediment under the Bankruptcy Code to Chase’s proceeding to
enforce its lien.
Whether Sindram is entitled to an injunction against
foreclosure based on the alleged existence of a debt Chase owes
him presents a question of nonbankruptcy law. 	Sindram can sue in
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia for injunctive
relief on that basis. 	This court is not perpetually required or
authorized to address Sindram’s affairs based on his having been
Case 08-00559 Doc 275 Filed 01/28/10 Entered 01/28/10 09:22:03 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 6

3
a debtor in this court.
That the debt allegedly owed him by Chase is based on an
allegation that there was a violation of the automatic stay for
which this court should award contempt damages does not alter
that analysis. 	The Superior Court (or some other court of
competent jurisdiction), not this court, is the appropriate court
to address Sindram’s request for injunctive relief based on any
alleged debt Chase owes him. 	It does not matter that the debt is
one for contempt committed in some court other than the Superior
Court.
This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Sindram’s
request for injunctive relief. 	Sindram cannot show, as required
by 11 U.S.C. § 1334(b) in order for jurisdiction to exist, that
his request for injunctive relief arises under the Bankruptcy
Code, arises in the case, or is related to the case.
Sindram’s request for injunctive relief arises under
nonbankruptcy law, not the Bankruptcy Code (even though the
nonbankruptcy law grounds for injunctive relief, the alleged
existence of a right of setoff, is premised on the existence of a
right to an award of contempt sanctions by this court).
Accordingly, this is not a proceeding that arises under the
Bankruptcy Code (title 11, United States Code).
Nor does the matter arise “in the case” as it does not
address one of “those ‘administrative’ matters that arise only in
Case 08-00559 Doc 275 Filed 01/28/10 Entered 01/28/10 09:22:03 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 6

4
bankruptcy cases . . . [and] that . . . would have no existence
outside of the bankruptcy . . . .” 	Wood v. Wood (In re Wood),
825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir. 1987). 	“Arising in” matters are
limited to those claims that could not have any existence outside
of bankruptcy. 	Although the request for injunctive relief
depends on establishing a violation of the automatic stay,
Sindram’s injunctive claim could arise from a right of setoff
based on a sanctions award in any court. 	He is free outside of
the bankruptcy case to rely on any claim he recovers for
violation of the automatic stay as a setoff defense against
Chase’s claims.
Finally, granting Sindram injunctive relief would have no
impact on the administration of the estate, so there is no
“related to” jurisdiction. 	See Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d
984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984).
That the property is property of the debtor over which this
court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) does not furnish
subject matter jurisdiction. 	First, the closing of the case, and
the reopening of the case only for purposes of hearing the
contempt motion against the condo association, resulted in the
case no longer being pending with respect to the debtor’s real
property. 	The closing of the case abandoned the property to the
debtor and resulted in the estate having been fully administered
insofar as that property was concerned. 	11 U.S.C. § 554(b).
Case 08-00559 Doc 275 Filed 01/28/10 Entered 01/28/10 09:22:03 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 6

5
Second, and more critically, § 1334(e) does not purport to
address jurisdiction over proceedings. 	Section 1334(e)
essentially is the equivalent of saying that during the pendency
of the bankruptcy case, no other court shall have jurisdiction to
entertain a receivership proceeding over the debtor’s property.
It does not confer jurisdiction over proceedings, such as a
complaint to enjoin a foreclosure proceeding, relating to such
property. 	Instead, addressing the issue of jurisdiction over
such proceedings is the function of § 1334(b) which specifically
addresses jurisdiction over proceedings. 	A debtor’s having been
a debtor in the bankruptcy court does not serve in perpetuity to
confer upon the bankruptcy court subject matter jurisdiction to
protect the debtor from efforts by creditors to foreclose on his
property.
For all of these reasons, I conclude that this court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Sindram’s request for injunctive
relief.
III
Sindram alleges that Chase violated the automatic stay by
continuing to bill him postpetition, and treats this as a
contempt. 	Sindram makes no allegation of the dates of the
billings, the character of the debt being billed, and whether
Chase had been made aware of the case when it sent the billings.
Sindram’s conclusory assertion of contempt does not suffice. 	See
Case 08-00559 Doc 275 Filed 01/28/10 Entered 01/28/10 09:22:03 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 6

6	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Sindram (Michael Joseph) - Mem Decsn and Order re Sindram v Chase Home Finance.wpd
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___ (2009). 	There is no reason to
enlarge the reopening of the case to permit Sindram to pursue his
request for contempt sanctions for violation of the automatic
stay unless and until he files a motion to reopen the case for
the purpose of pursuing an accompanying new motion for contempt
that pleads a contempt in non-conclusory terms. 	In any event,
Sindram does not appear to have made proper service of his motion
on Chase.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Verified Adversary Proceeding and Contempt
Motion; Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Injunctive Relief; Motion
for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 269) is dismissed without
prejudice to filing of a motion to reopen the case, properly
served on Chase, for the purpose of pursuing a contempt motion
that states a violation of the automatic stay in non-conclusory
terms.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Debtor; Chapter 7 trustee; Office of the United States Trustee;
James J. Loftus, Esq.
210 East Redwood Street, Suit 400
Baltimore, MD 21202-3399
Case 08-00559 Doc 275 Filed 01/28/10 Entered 01/28/10 09:22:03 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 6