Civil & Probate

-ADR
  ADR Forms
  ADR FAQ's


-Case Management
  Mediation Panel
  Case Management Forms

-Probate
  Probate FAQ's

-Tentative Rulings




Tentative Rulings, Truckee - Law and Motion

>Pivotal Resources v. Murphy Case No. TCU15-6158
>Arroyo v. Altec Industries Case No. TCU14-5857

Pivotal Resources v. Murphy Case No. TCU15-6158 

On the order to show cause why this case should not be stayed in favor of the Bankruptcy Courtís jurisdiction, the court notes as follows. There are three limited circumstances in which a state court exercise of jurisdiction and entry of judgment could be given preclusive effect in subsequent bankruptcy proceedings in federal court: (1) the state judgment is entered prepetition; (2) the bankruptcy court affirmatively has authorized the state action, as, for example, by lifting an automatic stay to permit the prosecution of a state court; or (3) the case does not involve a core proceeding that implicates substantive rights under the Bankruptcy Code. Bankr.Code, 11 U.S.C.A. ß 362(a). See In re Lon McGhan (9th Cir. 2002) 288 F.3d 1172, 1178.

None of those 3 exceptions apply to this case. Plaintiffís first amended complaint rises or falls on the post-bankruptcy status of defendantís contract rights and responsibilities to plaintiff, if any. On this record, it is not clear whether the contract rights and responsibilities inure to and on defendant, the Bankruptcy Trustee because of defendantís failure to list the contract as an asset in his bankruptcy schedules, or the purchaser of assets from the Trustee in the Bankruptcy. This case cannot be adjudicated in this court until that issue is clarified. Otherwise, this court will be impinging on matters within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

This court believes that the Bankruptcy Court needs to make a determination about whether defendantís claimed rights in this case were included in Defendantís bankruptcy and within the sale of assets by the Trustee. Therefore, at least the first four causes of action asserted by plaintiff should be stayed pending action by the Bankruptcy Court. Given that fact, it makes no sense to proceed with the remaining causes of action at this juncture.

Plaintiffís argument that ďthe FAC could be amended ÖĒ begs the question. No such motion to amend is pending. Moreover, this court is skeptical that the basic conundrum can be pleaded around successfully.

Therefore, this case is stayed until the Bankruptcy Court either enters its order clarifying these issues, or expressly defers to this state court to interpret that courtís matters of exclusive or at least concurrent jurisdiction. The case is set for further case management conference on August 19, 2016. The parties are required to file new CMC statements for that CMC.

Defendantís attorney is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312 and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order.

This is the Courtís tentative ruling. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and thereafter notify the courtís law and motion secretary at (530) 582-7835 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense. Local Rule 10.00.3B.


Arroyo v. Altec Industries Case No. TCU14-5857 

Defendant Stoneridgeís Motion for Summary Judgment is dropped as moot. Defendant Stoneridge was dismissed as to the Complaint on December 16, 2015.

Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense. Local Rule 10.00.3B.