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Not for Publication in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 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND MODIFICATION
OF ORDER AND FOR RELATED RELIEF AS TO SANCTIONS AGAINST VERIZON
With many missteps, the debtor Sindram has sought to impose
sanctions against Verizon-Washington, D.C. for violating the
automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) by billing for prepetition
claims (or claims that are treated by 11 U.S.C. § 348(d) as
though they are prepetition claims by reason of having arisen
prior to the conversion of this case to one under chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code on September 22, 2008). 	Sindram has filed a
motion seeking to vacate the court’s order denying his last
attempt in this regard.
Specifically, Sindram has filed a Motion for Clarification
and Modification of Order and for Related Relief as to Sanctions
Against Verizon (Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 113) seeking to have
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: April 13, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 08-00559 Doc 123 Filed 04/13/09 Entered 04/13/09 14:43:53 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

this court set aside its order (DE No. 96) denying Sindram’s
Corrected Motion for Appropriate Relief and Sanctions Against
Verizon-Washington, D.C. (DE No. 83), supplementing his Renewed
Motion for Appropriate Relief and Sanctions Against Verizon (DE
No. 60). 	The decision (DE No. 95) relating to that order stated:
Stripped of irrelevant allegations, the Renewed
Motion’s only relevant allegation was that on November
2, 2008, after receiving notice of this bankruptcy
case, Verizon delivered to the debtor a demand for
payment in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 	I
dismissed the Renewed Motion because the debtor failed
to identify the debt allegedly sought to be collected
by Verizon and the date on which that debt was
incurred. 	The Corrected Motion attaches a bill dated
January 2, 2009, but that bill fails to show any debt
incurred before the debtor commenced this case as a
chapter 13 case or before he then converted the case to
chapter 7. 	Accordingly, the debtor has still failed to
identify a debt that would be treated as incurred
before the commencement of the case. 	The automatic
stay does not bar collection of a debt incurred after
the commencement of the case.
Sindram now contends that the bill included past due charges, and
that (based on what he apparently maintains was a consistent
monthly billing amount) some of those charges were for services
rendered prior to the date of the conversion of this case to
chapter 7 (charges that would all be subject to the automatic
stay either as prepetition claims at the outset of the case or,
in the case of postpetition-preconversion claims, claims that are
deemed to be prepetition claims by reason of 11 U.S.C. § 348(d)).
Although Sindram has not included bills showing precisely
when Verizon rendered services covered by the bill, I will make
2
Case 08-00559 Doc 123 Filed 04/13/09 Entered 04/13/09 14:43:53 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

clear that he is free to pursue his remedies with respect to any
claims arising from any pursuit by Verizon postpetition of claims
for service rendered prior to September 22, 2008.
But Sindram’s Corrected Motion, the first motion as to which
he purports to have made proper service on Verizon-Washington,
D.C., did not incorporate the allegations of the Renewed Motion
that it was correcting, and, accordingly, did not give Verizon-
Washington, D.C. notice of the relief being sought, and,
moreover, did not include a proposed order that might have given
such notice. 	Moreover, for all the court knows, Verizon may now
have investigated the matter and acknowledged to Sindram that the
bills for service predating September 22, 2008 (the date of
conversion of this case to chapter 7) are not owed, in
satisfactory resolution of the matter.
It is thus
ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification and Modification
of Order and for Related Relief as to Sanctions Against Verizon
(DE No. 113) is granted in part and otherwise denied. 	It is
further
ORDERED that the Order Denying Corrected Motion for
Appropriate Relief and Sanctions Against Verizon (DE No. 96) is
vacated. 	It is further
ORDERED that the debtor’s Corrected Motion for Appropriate
Relief and Sanctions Against Verizon (DE No. 83) is DISMISSED
3
Case 08-00559 Doc 123 Filed 04/13/09 Entered 04/13/09 14:43:53 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

without prejudice to filing a motion (1) that gives Verizon
notice of the relief sought and the basis for seeking such
relief, including identifying the specific pre-conversion claims
of Verizon giving rise to the request for relief, (2) that
includes notice of the opportunity to oppose the motion, and (3)
that includes a separate proposed order.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Office of U.S. Trustee; Debtor ; Chapter 7 Trustee
Tracy Richmond
Verizon Representative
P.O. Box 9000
Annapolis, MD 21401-9000
Myrtle Lloyd
Specialist, Verizon
2055 L Street, NW
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
4	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Sindram (Michael Joseph) - Mem Decsn re Mtn for Clarification of Order re Verizon_v2.wpd
Case 08-00559 Doc 123 Filed 04/13/09 Entered 04/13/09 14:43:53 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4