TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd.
Decision Date | 15 November 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 11–1068.,11–1068. |
Citation | 661 F.3d 495,55 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 189 |
Parties | TW TELECOM HOLDINGS INC., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. CAROLINA INTERNET LTD., Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher Sean Spivey, Calvin Terbeek, T. Wade Welch, Esq., T. Wade Welch & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Christopher Perry Beall, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P., Denver, CO, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before KELLY, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Carolina Internet Ltd. appeals from the entry of default judgment against it and in favor of TW Telecom Holdings Inc. for more than three million dollars. During the pendency of this appeal, Carolina Internet filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
By its terms, § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code automatically stays the commencement or continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been initiated before the filing of a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). We recently reiterated this Circuit's interpretation of § 362(a)(1), explaining that “the automatic stay does not prevent a Chapter 11 debtor in possession,” like Carolina Internet, “from pursuing an appeal even if it is an appeal from a creditor's judgment against the debtor.” Chizzali v. Gindi (In re Gindi), 642 F.3d 865, 875 (10th Cir.2011). See also Morganroth & Morganroth v. DeLorean, 213 F.3d 1301, 1310 (10th Cir.2000); Mason v. Okla. Tpk. Auth., 115 F.3d 1442, 1450 (10th Cir.1997). In earlier decisions reaching this conclusion, we relied on Fed. R. Bankr.P. 6009 and Collier on Bankruptcy. See Chaussee v. Lyngholm (In re Lyngholm), 24 F.3d 89, 92 (10th Cir.1994) ( ); Autoskill, Inc. v. Nat'l Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1485–86 (10th Cir.1993) ( ).
At least nine other circuit courts of appeals disagree with our interpretation of § 362(a)(1) and have held “that a bankruptcy filing automatically stays appellate proceedings where the debtor has filed an appeal from a judgment entered in a suit against the debtor.” In re Gindi, 642 F.3d at 876 ( ); In re Lyngholm, 24 F.3d at 91 ( ).1 Further, Collier on Bankruptcy has explicitly rejected our reliance on it to support our minority position. 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 6009.04 n. 5 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2011) () . And finally, it should be self-evident that Bankruptcy “ Rule 6009 does not trump the code's automatic stay.” Simon v. Navon, 116 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.1995) ( ).
Accordingly, we overrule this circuit's prior interpretation of § 362(a)(1), as stated in In re Gindi, 642 F.3d at 870, 875–76; Morganroth & Morganroth, 213 F.3d at 1310; Mason, 115 F.3d at 1450; In re Lyngholm, 24 F.3d at 91–92; and Autoskill Inc., 994 F.2d at 1485–86. From this date forward, this Circuit will read
section 362... to stay all appeals in proceedings that were originally brought against the debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee. Thus, whether a case is subject to the automatic stay must be determined at its inception. That determination should not change depending on the particular stage of the litigation at which the filing of the petition in bankruptcy occurs.
Ass'n of St. Croix Condo. Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F.2d 446, 449 (3d Cir.1982).2
Accordingly, we hold that § 362(a)(1) prevents us from proceeding with this appeal. It is therefore STAYED until such time as it may proceed in a manner consistent with the Bankruptcy Code.3
1. See, e.g., Platinum Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Byrd (In re Byrd), 357 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir.2004) (); Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273, 275 (8th Cir.1993) ().
2. We have circulated this order to the en banc court, which unanimously agrees to overrule our prior interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), and to join our sister circuits' majority view. See United States v. Payne, 644 F.3d 1111, 1113 n. 2 (10th Cir.2011) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ross v. Jenkins
...See Mason v. Okla. Tpk. Auth. , 115 F.3d 1442, 1459 (10th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd. , 661 F.3d 495 (10th Cir. 2011) ("If a federal claim and a state claim arise from the same operative facts, and seek identical relief, an aw......
-
Osterhout v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Leflore Cnty.
...boundaries, and action sustaining an objection), overr'd in part on other grounds , TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd. , 661 F.3d 495, 497 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2011) (en banc footnote); Blevins v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 728 F.2d 1576, 1578–80 (10th Cir. 1984) (action sustaining a......
-
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., P.C.
...; Mason v. Okla. Turnpike Auth., 115 F.3d 1442, 1456 (10th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by, TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., 661 F.3d 495 (10th Cir. 2011) ). See United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926, 944 (10th Cir. 2008) ("If there is evidence that ‘specific[all......
-
In re Ace Track Co.
...waive the protections of the stay, even if it is to continue litigation such as appeals involving it. TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd. , 661 F.3d 495, 497 (10th Cir.2011) (noting that nine other circuits hold this way); Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Sys., Inc. , 790 F.2d 206,......
-
Staying Enforcement of a Judgment Pending Appeal
...Corp., 797 P.2d 1308, 1310 (Colo.App. 1990). [88] See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., 661 F.3d 495, 497 (10th Cir. 2011). [89] CRCP 62(h); Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(h). [90] C.A.R. 4.2(e), 21(f). [91] 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Wright et al„ supra note 5 at §3......
-
Walking the Balance Beam of the Bankruptcy Code's Discharge Injunction
...v. Nussbeck (In re Gray), 573 B.R. 868, 872 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2017) (Berger, J.). [2] TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd.., 661 F.3d 495, 496 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) ("a petition . . . operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . the commencem......
-
Walking the Balance Beam of the Bankruptcy Code's Discharge Injunction
...v. Nussbeck (In re Gray), 573 B.R. 868, 872 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2017) (Berger, J.). [2] TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., 661 F.3d 495, 496 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (“a petition . . . operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . the commenceme......