| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Sever Nonbankrupt Defendants For Relief From Automatic Stay As To Non-Bankrupt Defendants And For An Order Setting A Default Judgment Prove Up Hearing
Matter on calendar for Tuesday, November 4, 2025, Line 4, PLAINTIFF DAVID MILLSTEIN's Motion To Sever Nonbankrupt Defendants For Relief From Automatic Stay As To Non-Bankrupt Defendants And For An Order Setting A Default Judgment Prove Up Hearing.
Plaintiff's motion to sever nonbankrupt defendants for relief from automatic stay is denied. The court denies plaintiff's request to strike the opposition.
Plaintiff is correct that generally the bankruptcy automatic stay does not apply to nonbankrupt codefendants. (See In re Chugach Forest Prods., Inc., 23 F.3d 241, 246 (9th Cir. 1994) ["Section 362(a)(1) does not stay actions against guarantors, sureties, corporate affiliates, or other non-debtor parties liable on the debts of the debtor"].) The stay, however, may extend to third parties where property in the bankruptcy estate is at stake. (See United States v. Dos Cabezas Corp., 995 F.2d 1486, 1491 (9th Cir. 1993).) Status quo is the stay. Based on the present record and to further comity, promote reorganization, and to protect debtor's other creditors, the court denies the motion.
The bankruptcy proceeding is progressing, and the bankrupt defendant recently sold valuable real property that may service the debt. (Wong Decl., par. 7.) Moreover, Plaintiff is free to seek an order from the bankruptcy court clarifying that proceeding against the nonbankrupt defendants in this case will not inhibit the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court is best positioned to make that determination and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate salient prejudice from having to seek its requested relief in the bankruptcy court rather than here.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ). | |