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Not for Publication in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 STRIKING DEBTOR’S
RENEWAL OF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL IN ALL ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS
Based on Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33
(1989), there is no right to a jury trial with respect to a
proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (formerly 11 U.S.C. § 362(h)
prior to the statute’s amendment in 2005). 	See Gecker v.
Gierczyk (In re Glenn), 359 B.R. 200, 202-05 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
2006). 	As noted by the district court in denying leave to pursue
an interlocutory proceeding in In re Glenn:
The Supreme Court has held, in Nordberg, that Congress may
create new statutory causes of action and deny jury trials
in cases where “public rights” are litigated. [Citation
omitted.] A claim of violation of the automatic stay easily
fits a “public rights” definition. 	Although only two cases
are cited which have considered the question, both hold that
there is no right to a jury trial on such claims. In re
Gordon, 209 B.R. 414, 416-17 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 1997);
Periera v. Chapman, 92 B.R. 903, 908 (C.D. Cal. 1988).
There is no basis for a substantial disagreement with the
Bankruptcy Court's ruling on this issue.
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: May 04, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 08-00559 Doc 154 Filed 05/05/09 Entered 05/05/09 08:01:03 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
Gecker v. Gierczyk (In re Glenn), 2006 WL 2252529, at *3 (N.D.
Ill. Aug. 3, 2006).
The remedy in the bankruptcy court for any violation of the
discharge injunction (to the extent that the debtor is raising
violations of the discharge injunction in his pending motions) is
a civil contempt proceeding. 	See Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 507-10 (9th Cir. 2002); Cox v. Zale Delaware,
Inc., 239 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2001). 	The debtor does not
appear to be pursuing criminal contempt, and in any event a
criminal contempt proceeding in the bankruptcy court would not be
appropriate. 	See In re Akl, 2008 WL 5102277 (Bankr. D.D.C. Sept.
4, 2008). 	A civil contempt proceeding, being equitable in
nature, is to be tried by the judge, not a jury. 	Shillitani v.
United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966) (absent an express statute,
there is no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings).
It is
ORDERED that the debtor’s Renewal of Jury Trial in All
Adversary Proceedings (Docket Entry No. 148) is STRICKEN without
prejudice to renewal in the event the debtor pursues a proceeding
seeking damages other than for violation of the automatic stay or
for violation of the discharge injunction.
[Signed and dated above.]
Case 08-00559 Doc 154 Filed 05/05/09 Entered 05/05/09 08:01:03 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Sindram (Michael Joseph) -Order re Jury Trial Demand_v2.wpd
Copies to:
Debtor; Chapter 7 Trustee; Office of United States Trustee;
Jack E. Strausman, Esq.
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
701 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20068
George R. Pitts, Esq.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-5403
Craig Parker, Esq.
110 N. Washington Street, Ste. 500
Rockville, MD 20850
Case 08-00559 Doc 154 Filed 05/05/09 Entered 05/05/09 08:01:03 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3