Barrie William George Eves

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
POSTED TO THE WEBSITE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re:
BARRIE WILLIAM GEORGE EVES,
Debtor.
Case No. 25-20483-A-7
KA-7
Memorandum Amending Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law
Argued and submitted on December 15, 2025
at Sacramento, California
Honorable Fredrick E. Clement, Bankruptcy Judge Presiding
Appearances: Attorney Kimberly Ahrens for Creditors Maurice Giron,
Ahrens Law, APC, and Kimberly Ahrens; Attorney James
A. Shepherd for the Debtor
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59

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
2
Section 362(d)(1) allows this court to modify the stay to allow
state court litigation to liquidate a debt. 	Creditor prevailed
against the debtor in state court but has not ruled on an attorneys’
fees motion. 	Debtor filed Chapter 7, which is a “no asset” case.
Creditor sections 523, 727 actions. 	The debt will only be relevant if
the plaintiff prevails in the adversary proceeding but requires
continued state court litigation. 	Should the court grant stay relief?
I. 	FACTS
Prior to bankruptcy, Barrie George Eves (“Eves”) was a one of
several defendants in a state court employment law action. 	The
plaintiff was Maurice Giron (“Giron”); his attorney was Kimberly
Ahrens (“Ahrens”). 	At trial, plaintiff Giron prevailed and was
awarded damages of $1.4 million. 	Apparently, applicable non-
bankruptcy law authorizes the prevailing plaintiff in such an action
to seek costs and attorney’s fees.
Before Giron sought those fees, Eves filed a Chapter 7
bankruptcy. 	Irma Edmonds was appointed and remains the Chapter 7
trustee. 	Trustee Edmonds has filed a report of no distribution.
Giron has filed a claim for $1.4 million; Ahrens has filed a claim for
attorney’s fees in an “unknown,” amount.
Giron and Ahrens filed a post-trial motion for attorney’s fees
and costs against all defendants except Eves. 	Ahrens decl. 3:2-3, ECF
No. 48. 	Thereafter, “the State Court ordered Plaintiff’s, herein
Creditors, to obtain an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court
lifting the stay for Debtor Eves to enable the State court to rule on
the motion for fees and costs and continued the post-trial motion for
fees.” 	Id. at 3:5-8.
Creditor Giron and attorney Ahrens have filed an adversary
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59

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
3
proceeding to deny Eves his discharge and to except the debt from
discharge. 	11 U.S.C. §§ 523, 727. 	Notwithstanding the passage of
almost nine months and several amendments to the complaint, the
adversary proceeding is in the pleadings stage.
II. 	PROCEDURE
Thereafter, Giron and Ahrens moved this court for relief from the
stay to allow the state court to rule on the motion for attorney’s
fees and costs. 	Eves opposed the motion. 	The court denied the motion
believing that the question was better handled by way of the claims
process. 	Civ. Minutes, ECF No. 51. 	Giron and Ahrens have appealed
the ruling and, in light of that appeal, this court avails itself of
the option to augmenting its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
III. 	JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction. 	28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a)-(b), 157(b);
see also General Order No. 182 of the Eastern District of California.
Jurisdiction is core. 	28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(a)-(O); In re Bellucci,
119 B.R. 763, 773 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1990).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
The Bankruptcy Court may lift or modify the stay for cause. 	11
U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). 	Excepting a lack of adequate protection, cause”
is not a defined term. 	“Cause” has no clear definition and is
determined on a case-by-case basis.” 	In re Universal Life Church,
Inc., 127 B.R. 453, 455 (E.D. Cal. 1991), aff'd sub nom. Universal
Life Church, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1992). 	The
bankruptcy court is given wide discretion on the question. 	In re
Arnold, 806 F.2d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 1986).
While it is true that litigation in a non-bankruptcy forum may
constitute cause, In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F. 2d 1162, 1169
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59

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
4
(9th Cir. 1990), the existence of litigation in a non-bankruptcy forum
is not cause per se. 	Many courts apply the Sonnax Industries factors:
[1] Whether the relief will result in a complete or only a
partial resolution of the issues; [2] The degree of
connection or interference with the bankruptcy case; [3]
Whether the case involves the debtor as a fiduciary; [4]
Whether the case is before a specialized tribunal with
necessary expertise to determine the issues; [5] Whether
the debtor's defense and potential liability is covered by
insurance; [6] Whether the action involves primarily third
parties; [7] Whether the case would prejudice other
creditors' interests; [8] Whether a resulting judgment
would be subject to equitable subordination (11 USC §
510(c); [9] 	Whether a resulting judgment would result in a
judicial lien avoidable by the debtor (11 USC § 522(f), see
¶ 21:1390 ff.); [10] 	The interests of judicial economy
and the expeditious and economical resolution of
litigation; [11] Whether the parties are ready for trial;
and [12] The impact of the stay on the parties and the
balance of harms.
March, Ahart & Shapiro, California Practice Guide: Bankruptcy § 8:1165
(Rutter Group December 2025), citing In re Sonnax Indus., Inc. (2nd
Cir. 1990) 907 F.2d 1280, 1286; In re Hakim, 212 B.R. 632, 639-640
(Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1997).
As the court noted in Sonnax, not all of the factors apply in
every case and the court need not give equal weight in making its
decision. 	In re Plumberex Specialty Prods., Inc., 311 B.R. 551, 560
(Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004); In re Smith, 389 B.R. 902, 919 (Bankr. D.
Nev. 2008).
Two points seem relevant. 	First, the movant can still obtain
state court relief, i.e., ruling on the attorney’s fees motion, as to
the other defendants. 	That is true because the stay does not protect
third parties. 	In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc., 23 F.3d 241, 246
(9th Cir. 1994) (stay does not protect third parties); United States
v. Dos Cabezas Corp., 995 F.2d 1486, 1491-1492 (9th Cir. 1993). 	It
appears that some, or all, of the players in the state court action
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59

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
5
believe the contrary.
Second, as to the real player before this court, Giron and Eves,
this court believes that the Sonnax Indus. factors weigh in favor of
denial of the motion. 	At best, the state court’s ruling will afford
only partial relief. 	The Chapter 7 case is a no asset case, which
means liquidation of the claim is unnecessary for purposes of
distribution. 	Certainly, liquidation would resolve a part, probably a
very small part, of the discharge and denial of discharge proceedings.
Based on this court’s involvement with the adversary proceeding, this
court is not yet convinced that this is a likely outcome.
Likewise, the degree of connection or interference, the case is
less than strong, again because it will impact only the adversary
proceeding.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the debtor has insurance that
will pay to defend the motion. 	This court does not believe that
compelling the debtor to expend precious resources defending the
motion on the chance that the plaintiff will prevail in the adversary
(which could make liquidation of the debt significant).
While the movant argues that judicial economy is served by
granting the motion, this court finds to the contrary. 	The question
of the attorney’s fees and costs for which Eves is liable can easily
be determined by this court.
Finally, the court balances the harms. 	The debtor may be
significantly harmed financially by being forced to defend further in
state court; in contrast, the creditor will not be harmed by forcing
him to liquidate his debt in the non-dischargeability action. 	March,
Ahert & Shapiro, California Practice Guide: Bankruptcy § 8:1176
(Rutter Group December 2025) (“Where the subject of the litigation
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59

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
6
relates to a claim against the debtor that is dischargeable in
bankruptcy, relief from stay may be denied. Reason: Such claims
usually can be handled more economically within the bankruptcy case).
V. 	CONCLUSION
For each of these reasons, the motion will be denied. 	The court
will issue an amended order from chambers.
December 18, 2025
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59

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
7
Instructions to Clerk of Court
Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment
The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment or other court generated
document transmitted herewith to the parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the document
via the BNC or, if checked ____, via the U.S. mail.
Debtor(s) 	Attorney for the Debtor(s) (if any)
Bankruptcy Trustee (if appointed in the case) Office of the U.S. Trustee
Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse
501 I Street, Room 7-500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Kimberly Ahrens
Ahrens Law, APC
2173 Salk Ave, Ste 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Filed 12/18/25 Case 25-20483 Doc 59