Shahram Nemani

-1-
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
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re:
Shahram Nemani
Debtor.
Case No.: 2:14-bk-12862-TD
CHAPTER 11
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO IMPOSE
OR CONTINUE THE AUTOMATIC STAY
Date: April 2, 2014
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 1345
Debtor filed two motions, one on March 5, 2014, and the second on March 12,
2014. The first seeks to continue the automatic stay under § 362(c)(3)(C). The second
seeks to have the stay take effect as to all creditors under § 362(c)(4)(B).
The first motion is denied because it was not filed and served on adequate
notice, particularly to secured creditors, and was not scheduled for hearing within 30
days of the filing of this second bankruptcy case pending within the preceding “1-year
period” specified in §§ 362(c)(3)(A) and (B). Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant
Debtor’s first motion.
The Debtor’s second motion is denied for the following reasons:
FILED & ENTERED
APR 24 2014
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	toliver
Case 2:14-bk-12862-TD Doc 30 Filed 04/24/14 Entered 04/24/14 08:02:44 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 3

-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
Though § 362(c)(4)(B) requires a showing that a debtor seeking an ongoing stay
in such a second bankruptcy pending within a year, such an order is available “only if
the party [seeking the stay] demonstrates that the filing of the later case is in good faith .
. .”, among other things.
Pursuant to § 362(c)(4)(D), “a [later] case is presumptively filed not in good faith.”
The presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Id.
The court concludes that Debtor has not provided adequate evidence to clearly
and convincingly rebut the presumption of § 362(c)(4)(D).
Debtor says in his sworn declaration that he is working two jobs and his wife is
working one. But Debtor neither testifies nor documents any income, other than
$1,707.20, as separately stated in Debtor’s Schedule I filed February 28, 2014. That
sum is not enough to support Debtor and his wife’s ordinary living expenses as reflected
in Debtor’s Schedule J. It does not support reasonable debt service to secured
creditors in this case. With two real properties valued at $1.4 million, Debtor’s Schedule
A and D report secured debt exceeding that amount by $500,000.
Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs (SOFA), filed in the first case on July 12,
2012, reported 2010 gross income for both spouses from employment of $54,642 in
2010; and employment income of $26,185.32 for 2012 and unemployment income of
$17,411.31 for 2012.
Debtor’s SOFA filed in the second case on February 28, 2014, contains new
figures for 2012—$41,063 employment income for both spouses; $35,753 employment
income for 2013; and $2,560, year to date, for 2014. No unemployment income was
reported.
From the foregoing, the evidence demonstrates that as of 2014, Debtor’s and his
wife’s income has declined from 2010 to 2014.
Debtor in his supporting declaration professes to have a reorganization strategy
in the second case. Debtor fails to explain that strategy.
In addition, the court notes that Debtor’s moving papers were not served on
Case 2:14-bk-12862-TD Doc 30 Filed 04/24/14 Entered 04/24/14 08:02:44 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 3

-3-
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
secured creditors in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(d)(3)
or (h). Moreover, the attorney for U.S. Bank who obtained an adequate protection order
from the court in Debtor’s first bankruptcy case was not served at all.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 24, 2014
Case 2:14-bk-12862-TD Doc 30 Filed 04/24/14 Entered 04/24/14 08:02:44 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 3