Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Thompson v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391

    Uploaded by

    carlo
    1) The bankruptcy court dismissed Thompson's eighth bankruptcy case and imposed a two-year bar on refiling due to finding the sole purpose was to delay foreclosure on her property. 2) While the bankruptcy was ongoing, Thompson filed an adversary proceeding concerning a loan secured by her property. 3) After dismissing the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court also dismissed the adversary proceeding, finding under the relevant Carraher factors that it should decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. 4) The district court affirmed, finding the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard and its factual findings under the Carraher factors were not clearly erroneous. The district court also found Thompson's arguments did not undermine the bankruptcy court's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Thompson v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391

    Uploaded by

    carlo
    40 views4 pages
    1) The bankruptcy court dismissed Thompson's eighth bankruptcy case and imposed a two-year bar on refiling due to finding the sole purpose was to delay foreclosure on her property. 2) While the bankruptcy was ongoing, Thompson filed an adversary proceeding concerning a loan secured by her property. 3) After dismissing the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court also dismissed the adversary proceeding, finding under the relevant Carraher factors that it should decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. 4) The district court affirmed, finding the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard and its factual findings under the Carraher factors were not clearly erroneous. The district court also found Thompson's arguments did not undermine the bankruptcy court's

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The bankruptcy court dismissed Thompson's eighth bankruptcy case and imposed a two-year bar on refiling due to finding the sole purpose was to delay foreclosure on her property. 2) While the bankruptcy was ongoing, Thompson filed an adversary proceeding concerning a loan secured by her property. 3) After dismissing the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court also dismissed the adversary proceeding, finding under the relevant Carraher factors that it should decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. 4) The district court affirmed, finding the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard and its factual findings under the Carraher factors were not clearly erroneous. The district court also found Thompson's arguments did not undermine the bankruptcy court's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    40 views4 pages

    Thompson v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391

    Uploaded by

    carlo
    1) The bankruptcy court dismissed Thompson's eighth bankruptcy case and imposed a two-year bar on refiling due to finding the sole purpose was to delay foreclosure on her property. 2) While the bankruptcy was ongoing, Thompson filed an adversary proceeding concerning a loan secured by her property. 3) After dismissing the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court also dismissed the adversary proceeding, finding under the relevant Carraher factors that it should decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. 4) The district court affirmed, finding the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard and its factual findings under the Carraher factors were not clearly erroneous. The district court also found Thompson's arguments did not undermine the bankruptcy court's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    No Shepard’s Signal™

    As of: March 17, 2022 2:15 AM Z

    Thompson v. PNC Bank, N.A.


    United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division

    January 26, 2022, Decided; January 26, 2022, Filed

    Case No. 21-cv-05262-BLF

    Reporter
    2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391 *; 2022 WL 228308

    DEBBIE ALICE THOMPSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PNC BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants/Appellees.

    Core Terms

    bankruptcy court, adversary proceedings, bankruptcy case, factors, retain jurisdiction, clear error, reply

    Counsel: [*1] Debbie Alice Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro se, Monte Sereno, CA.

    For B&B Capital, LLC, B&B Funding, LLC, IRA F. Baily, Mortgag Lender Services Inc., Defendants: Bonni Soladar
    Mantovani, LEAD ATTORNEY, Prober & Raphael, A Law Corporation, Woodland Hills, CA.

    For PNC Bank, National Association, Defendant: Jonathan Cahill, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wolfe & Wyman LLP,
    Sacramento, CA; Jeffrey Scott Kaufman, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Irvine, CA.

    Judges: BETH LABSON FREEMAN, United States District Judge.

    Opinion by: BETH LABSON FREEMAN

    Opinion

    ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT OF BANKRUPTCY COURT

    [Re: ECF No. 1]

    Plaintiff—Appellant Debbie Alice Thompson appeals the judgment of the bankruptcy court declining jurisdiction over
    and dismissing an adversary proceeding. Appellee PNC Bank, N.A. has answered and argues that the judgment
    should be affirmed. For the reasons explained below, the judgment of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.

    I. BACKGROUND

    Zerrina Alvarez
    Page 2 of 4
    2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391, *1

    Thompson has repeatedly filed and dismissed voluntary petitions under Chapters 7 and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code
    over the past twelve years. Each of those petitions concerned, at least in part, a loan executed by Thompson and
    secured by real property at 18285 Constitution Avenue, Monte Sereno, CA 95030. The Court need not [*2] recount
    that entire litigation history. As is relevant here, her eighth bankruptcy case was filed on February 4, 2021 in this
    district. See In re Debbie Alice Thompson, No. 21-50146-SLJ (Bank. N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 4, 2021); see also id.,
    ECF No. 76 at 2 n.3 (listing seven bankruptcy cases filed before that instant bankruptcy case). On April 26, 2021,
    the Bankruptcy Court dismissed that case. Id. The Bankruptcy Court imposed a two-year bar on refiling, finding that
    "the sole purpose of th[e] case, as well as previous cases, [wa]s to delay foreclosure" on her property. Id. at 5-7.
    Thompson's appeal of that dismissal is currently pending before another judge in this District. See In re Debbie
    Alice Thompson, No. 21-cv-5021-YGR (N.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2021).

    While the bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing, Thompson filed an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court.
    See Thompson v. B&B Capital et al., No. 21-5005 (Bank. N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 25, 2021). On June 16, 2021, the
    Bankruptcy Court dismissed the adversary proceedings in an order that Thompson presently appeals to this Court.

    ECF No. 1-1 at 3 ("BC Order").1 The Bankruptcy Court concluded that because the bankruptcy case underlying [*3]
    the adversary proceeding had been dismissed, it needed to consider whether it should retain jurisdiction over the
    adversary proceeding. Id. at 2. The Bankruptcy Court applied the factors from In re Carraher, 971 F.2d 327, 328
    (9th Cir. 1992)—"economy, convenience, fairness and comity"—and concluded that it should decline to retain
    jurisdiction. Id. at 2-4. The Bankruptcy Court further declined to allow Thompson to file a purported amended
    complaint that was untimely filed on the docket because it did not alter its analysis under Carraher. Id. at 4-5.

    Thompson appealed that order to this Court. Thompson filed her opening brief on November 15, 2021. ECF No. 7
    ("Thompson Br."). Appellee PNC Bank, N.A. filed an answering brief on December 23, 2021. ECF No. 10 ("PNC

    Br.").2 Thompson filed a reply brief on January 10, 2022. ECF No. 11 ("Reply Br.").

    II. LEGAL STANDARD

    A district court reviews a bankruptcy court's decision whether to retain jurisdiction over a case under an abuse of
    discretion standard. In re Sullivan, 522 B.R. 604, 611 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2014). That inquiry proceeds in two parts.
    First, the court reviews de novo whether the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard. United States v.
    Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Second, the court examines the bankruptcy's factual
    findings for clear error. Id. at 1262 & n.20; see also In re Eisen, 14 F.3d 469, 470 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding [*4] of
    "bad faith" reviewed for clear error).

    III. DISCUSSION

    1 In the rest of this Order, the Court will refer to the page numbers on the order itself, not the ECFgenerated page numbers.

    2 While the other appellees have not filed answering briefs, Thompson provides no reason why the arguments in PNC's
    answering brief do not apply equally to all the appellees.

    Zerrina Alvarez
    Page 3 of 4
    2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391, *4

    The Court engages in the two-part review of the Bankruptcy Court's order—first reviewing de novo if the Bankruptcy
    Court applied the correct legal standard, and second examining its factual findings for clear error. Hinkson, 585
    F.3d at 1261-62.

    First, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court applied the correct legal standard to determine if it should continue
    to exercise jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding. "[B]ankruptcy courts are not automatically divested of
    jurisdiction over related cases when the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed." In re Carraher, 971 F.2d at 328.
    A bankruptcy court considers the familiar four factors when district courts consider whether to retain jurisdiction over
    pendant state law claims—"economy, convenience, fairness and comity." Id. The Bankruptcy Court correctly
    identified this as the applicable legal standard and performed an analysis under each of the four factors. BC Order
    at 2-4.

    Second, the Court finds no clear error in the Bankruptcy Court's factual findings on each of the four factors. On the
    first factor ("economy"), the Bankruptcy Court concluded that it had performed virtually no work on the matter, even
    though the parties had done [*5] work by engaging in some motion practice. BC Order at 2-3. On the second and
    third factors ("convenience" and "fairness"), the Bankruptcy Court concluded it would be neither convenient nor
    unfair to Thompson or the defendants who moved to dismiss the adversary complaint to require them to proceed in
    state court. Id. at 3. On the final factor ("comity"), the Bankruptcy Court concluded that because Thompson's
    complaint pleaded two state law claims, the court wanted to avoid "[n]eedless decisions of state law by [a] federal
    court" in favor of decisions by the state court. Id. The Bankruptcy Court further found that, even if it allowed

    Thompson to amend her pleading to assert federal claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1641 and 18 U.S.C. § 152,3 comity
    still favored allowing the state court to decide the matter. Id. at 3-4. The Court finds no clear error in these findings
    that underpin the Bankruptcy Court's decision to decline jurisdiction over the state law claims.

    Thompson offers no argument in either her opening or reply brief that undermines the Bankruptcy Court's decision.
    Those briefs largely raise merits arguments that are irrelevant to the order on appeal here—the Bankruptcy Court's
    decision to decline to retain jurisdiction [*6] over pendant state law claims and dismiss the adversary proceeding
    following the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case. Thompson's opening brief is spent reciting allegations
    that "none of the Appellees 'lent' and 'Money' to [her]" and that the appellees filed "misrepresented and
    manufactured documents into the bankruptcy court." Thompson Br. at 7-9 ("Statement of Facts"), 9-10
    ("Argument"). Thompson only addresses the declination of jurisdiction in her reply brief, and there again rests most
    of her opposition on those same allegations. See, e.g., Reply Br. at 3-4 (claiming error because she filed the
    adversary proceeding after "DISCOVERING FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENTS VERIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF
    STATE OF FLORIDA"); id. at 4 (claiming error due to the filing of "[f]radulent and fabricated documents" in the
    Bankruptcy Court); id. at 5 (claiming error because the Bankruptcy Court should not have dismissed the adversary
    proceeding "where there is fraud involved"). Where Thompson briefly mentions the Carraher factors, id. at 5-6, she

    3 The Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court's conclusion that no case has found an implied private right of action for a debtor
    to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 152 in an adversary proceeding. See BC Order at 4 (citing In re Terio, 158 B.R. 907, 911-12
    (S.D.N.Y. 1993)). Thompson has offered no argument to the contrary.

    Zerrina Alvarez
    Page 4 of 4
    2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14391, *6

    offers only the same arguments mentioned above. Those arguments do not establish "clear error" in the Bankruptcy
    Court's findings on the Carraher factors.

    Thus, the Court [*7] concludes that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in declining the retain
    jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding after dismissing the underlying bankruptcy case.

    IV. ORDER

    For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of the adversary
    proceeding is AFFIRMED.

    Dated: January 26, 2022

    /s/ Beth Labson Freeman

    BETH LABSON FREEMAN

    United States District Judge

    End of Document

    Zerrina Alvarez

    You might also like