Shawn Dolgin

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. 11-31091DM
SHAWN DOLGIN, 	)
)
Debtor. 	) Chapter 13
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On June 15, 2011, the court considered the motion of David
Teter and Kathleen Miller (“Moving Parties”) to dismiss this
Chapter 13 case filed by Shawn Dolgin (“Debtor”) on March 21,
2011.
For the reasons discussed below, Moving Parties’ motion will
be granted and Debtor’s case will be dismissed.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The court considers the propriety of Debtor’s Chapter 13 case
under a “totality of circumstances” test and concludes that Debtor
filed this case in bad faith.
First, as the record reflects, Debtor used the threat of
bankruptcy as an offensive weapon in connection with his
litigation with Moving Parties in state court. 	While frequently
debtors file bankruptcy in good faith on the eve of trial or entry
-1-
Signed and Filed: July 08, 2011
________________________________________
DENNIS MONTALI
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
July 11, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-31091 Doc# 34 Filed: 07/08/11 Entered: 07/11/11 17:11:30 Page 1 of 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
of judgment, in this case Debtor filed to avoid discovery after
threatening bankruptcy as an alternative to an unrealistic
proposal for mediation that could not have been serious since
Moving Parties’ counsel’s affirmative response was not accepted by
Debtor.
Apart from Debtor’s litigation conduct, it appears that he is
quite able to deal with his few creditors outside of bankruptcy.
Specifically, he has substantial assets (admittedly some of which
are exempt but still are not insignificant) and those assets
include luxury goods, jewelry, and nearly a quarter of a million
dollars of funds in various pension and profit sharing accounts.
Further, he has a substantial income to meet expenses that include
$462 per month repaying his own “403B loan.” 	That is not a proper
charge against disposable income. 	See In re Egebjerg, 574 F.3d
1045(9th Cir. 2009).
Given those circumstances, Debtor’s unsecured non-priority
claims are well within his control to pay.
Finally, Debtor’s plan proposes a modest payment of $100 per
month for sixty months, an amount that does not appear to be his
best efforts but rather a way to attempt to avoid his day of
reckoning with Moving Parties. 	If he defeats them in state court,
the absence of a need for bankruptcy relief is all the more
apparent. 	If Moving Parties prevail, Debtor may revisit the
question of whether or not he should be entitled to bankruptcy
relief.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Chapter 13 case will be
dismissed. 	The court is concurrently entering an order dismissing
-2-
Case: 11-31091 Doc# 34 Filed: 07/08/11 Entered: 07/11/11 17:11:30 Page 2 of 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
this case.
**END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION**
-3-
Case: 11-31091 Doc# 34 Filed: 07/08/11 Entered: 07/11/11 17:11:30 Page 3 of 3