Locke v. Scoggins et al

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
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
JOHN PERPINAN, No. 05-14638
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
JEFFRY LOCKE, Trustee,
Plaintiff(s),
v. A.P. No. 06-1087
JOAN SCOGGINGS, et al.,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________________/
Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss
_________________
The complaint in this matter alleges that a payment of about $8,200.00 made before bankruptcy to
defendant Joan Scoggins, mother of debtor John Perpinan, is avoidable as a preference or a fraudulent
conveyance. Scoggins has responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1).
The motion is procedurally baseless. Avoidance actions arise under the Bankruptcy Code. The
court has subject matter jurisdiction over such actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Just because a
Entered on Docket
July 24, 2006
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 06-01087 Doc# 15 Filed: 07/24/06 Entered: 07/24/06 11:03:21 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
2
defendant has a defense, even a clear defense begging for summary judgment, does not mean that the
court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Although not necessary to decide the motion, the court notes that Scoggins misreads In re Keller,
185 B.R. 796 (9th Cir.BAP 1995). That case merely held that state court adjustments to property rights
of spouses in marital dissolution proceedings were not, in the context of that case, avoidable by the
trustee. It is not applicable to payments to third party creditors like Scoggins.
The argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars is applicable to this case is nonsense. Just
because a state court orders a payment does not insulate the payment from avoidance as a preference.
The state court in this case made no attempt to decree that the payment to Scoggins was not avoidable in
bankruptcy, but even if it had its order would not have been binding on the bankruptcy trustee because no
bankruptcy had as yet been filed.
The motion to dismiss will accordingly be denied, and Scoggins shall have ten days to answer
the complaint. Counsel for plaintiff shall submit an appropriate form of order.
Dated: July 24, 2006
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 06-01087 Doc# 15 Filed: 07/24/06 Entered: 07/24/06 11:03:21 Page 2 of 2