In re Cantin
| Decision Date | 30 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 15-28505-BKC-MAM |
| Parties | In re: RENE CANTIN, Debtor. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon numerous motions for contempt and sanctions (collectively, the "Sanctions Motions") filed on behalf of the above-captioned debtor (the "Debtor") by his former counsel, Donald Jacobson ("Jacobson"), and a motion for Rule 9011 sanctions (the "RNCP Sanctions Motion")1 filed bycounsel to Rusty Norvell Concrete Pumping Services, Inc. ("RNCP"), Janice Norvell ("Ms. Norvell"), and John Norvell ("Mr. Norvell") (RNCP, Ms. Norvell, and Mr. Norvell collectively, "Creditors").
In the Sanctions Motions, Debtor argues that Creditors2 violated the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 during Debtor's bankruptcy case (the "Bankruptcy Case") and the discharge injunction provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 524. Specifically, Debtor argues that Creditors' participation in the state of Florida's ("State") prosecution of a worthless check allegedly uttered by Debtor violated the Bankruptcy Code and, further, that the State's arrest of Debtor as part of such prosecution caused Debtor extreme mental anguish and other harm for which Creditors ought to compensate him.
Creditors contend that no violation of the stay or discharge injunction occurred. In the RNCP Sanctions Motion, Creditors seek sanctions against Debtor and Jacobson for protracted litigation without sufficient factual and legal basis. Having considered all relevant pleadings, memoranda, exhibits, witness testimony, and the full record of this Bankruptcy Case, the Court denies Debtor's Sanctions Motions and grants the RNCP Sanctions Motion.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334(a) and the standing order of reference codified in Rule 87.2 of the Local Rules of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The procedural history of this Bankruptcy Case is extraordinarily convoluted and confusing. Debtor has repeatedly filed, then withdrawn, numerous motions seeking substantially similar relief. Through Jacobson, Debtor reopened his Bankruptcy Case twice, resulting in a total of three different periods of activity. Jacobson later hastily withdrew from his representation of Debtor prior to the evidentiary hearing upon the Sanctions Motions, leaving Debtor to fend for himself at trial. Since Jacobson's withdrawal, Debtor has followed Jacobson's practice of filing procedurally anomalous and often inappropriate motions. This pattern continued during the period in which the Sanctions Motions remained under advisement. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 151 and 153.
Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 19, 2015 (the "Petition Date"). Jacobson served as Debtor's counsel throughout the Bankruptcy Case. Debtor received his discharge on January 22, 2016 and, on March 19, 2016, the chapter 7 trustee ("Trustee") filed a report of no distribution. See ECF Nos. 24 and 26. Approximately one month later, the Court entered a final decree and discharge of Trustee, closing the Bankruptcy Case. See
A little less than one year later, on February 8, 2017, Debtor, represented by Jacobson, filed a motion to reopen (the "First Motion to Reopen") the Bankruptcy Case to add RNCP as a creditor. See ECF No. 28. Debtor then immediately (3 minutes later) filed a motion for contempt (the "First Contempt Motion") against RNCP and Ms. Norvell.3 See ECF No. 29. Prior to that date, Debtor had never listed RNCP or Ms. Norvell as creditors in the Bankruptcy Case.
Two days later, Debtor filed an amended motion to reopen the Bankruptcy Case on negative notice (the "Amended Motion to Reopen"). See ECF No. 31. Despite Debtor's belated attempt to reopen the case without a hearing, the Court nonetheless set the First Motion to Reopen for hearing on March 7, 2017, along with the First Contempt Motion. On February 21, 2017, Creditors' counsel filed a notice of appearance and request for service of documents. See ECF No. 35.
On February 23, 2017 (two days after receiving notice that the respondents to the First Contempt Motion were represented by counsel and therefore were likely toattend the scheduled hearing), Debtor withdrew the First Contempt Motion (but not the Amended Motion to Reopen) via a notice of withdrawal that specifically referenced the March 7 hearing date. On March 6, 2017—one day prior to the scheduled hearing—Debtor filed a certificate of no response as to the First Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 28), citing the expiration of the negative notice provisions in the Amended Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 31).4 See ECF No. 37. The result was a mélange of indecipherable pleadings.
A few hours later (presumably trying to avoid the necessity of attending the hearing that remained scheduled for the next day), Debtor filed a notice of withdrawal as to the First Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 28), but erroneously referred to the Amended Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 29) in the text of the document. See ECF No. 38 (the "First Notice of Withdrawal").5 Four minutes later, Debtor filed yet another notice of withdrawal. See ECF No. 39 (the "Second Notice of Withdrawal").
The Second Notice of Withdrawal referred to the First Motion to Reopen in the title and the body of the text, made no reference to the Amended Motion to Reopen,and attempted to "withdraw" (rather than amend) the First Notice of Withdrawal.
Collectively, the erroneous motions and crisscrossed withdrawals created a bewildering thicket of procedurally anomalous filings. It is unclear from the record whether Debtor's counsel personally advised Creditors' counsel of the various withdrawals and intended cancellation of the hearing date, as professional courtesy would require, but it is evident that Debtor's disjointed and disorganized approach placed an unnecessary burden upon the Court.6
On March 7, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Debtor's request to reopen the Bankruptcy Case. See ECF No. 40. Soon thereafter, Debtor filed an amended schedule E/F that included RNCP as an unsecured creditor (but not Mr. or Ms. Norvell, despite Debtor's prior request for sanctions against Ms. Norvell). See ECF No. 43 ("Amended Schedule E/F"). On June 6, 2017, the Court closed the case again.
Approximately one year later, on May 15, 2018, Debtor filed a second motionto reopen the Bankruptcy Case (a third time)7 for the stated purpose of filing yet another motion for sanctions. See ECF No. 47 (the "Second Motion to Reopen").8 Three days later, Debtor filed a second motion for sanctions, this time against RNCP, Mr. Norvell (who was not listed as a creditor on Amended Schedule E/F), and Ms. Norvell (who also was not listed as a creditor). See ECF No. 48 (the "Second Contempt Motion").9 On the same day, without a title, description, or any identifying information, Debtor filed three additional documents consisting of a total of over 160 pages that the Court construed as "Document(s) in Support of" the Second Contempt Motion.10 See ECF Nos. 49, 50, and 51. Much later that day (at 11:11 p.m.), Debtor filed a fifth document that the Court construed as yet another motion for sanctions based upon the title of the document. See ECF No. 52.11
Three days later, Jacobson filed a "Notice of Legal Authority" on Debtor'sbehalf. See ECF No. 55 (the "Notice of Legal Authority"). The Notice of Legal Authority consisted of two largely indecipherable paragraphs followed by one copy of case law with handwritten notations. In addition, the Notice of Legal Authority did not reference any other filing or otherwise indicate that it was intended to be construed as a memorandum in support of a specific motion.12
On June 12, 2018, the Court held a non-evidentiary hearing on the Second Motion to Reopen and the Second Contempt Motion. The Court granted the Second Motion to Reopen at that hearing but determined that the Second Contempt Motion should be set for an evidentiary hearing on August 22, 2018.13 On June 21, 2018, the Court entered an order granting the Second Motion to Reopen. See ECF No. 62 (the "June 2018 Order to Reopen").14
On June 26, 2018, six days after entry of the June 2018 Order to Reopen, Debtor (inexplicably) filed a reply (ECF No. 64) (the "Reply") to the Creditors'response to the Second Motion to Reopen. Because the filing of the Reply post-dated entry of the June 2018 Order to Reopen, the Court deemed the Reply moot and did not consider it in any further analysis.
On July 13, 2018, Debtor filed yet another motion for sanctions (ECF No. 66), along with an "emergency" motion for sanctions (ECF No. 67) against numerous persons and entities, including various State employees. One day later, Debtor filed an "amended" motion for sanctions (ECF No. 70). Because the "amended" motion did not reference any prior motion for sanctions, the Court was left to exercise its best judgment as which motion Debtor intended to amend.
Three days later, Debtor filed another motion for sanctions. See ECF No. 73. Not content with having filed at least (by the Court's count) four motions for sanctions (assuming the "amended" motion in fact amended a prior filing) and having secured a date for an evidentiary hearing upon at least one of the motions, Debtor also filed a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 76) (the "...
To continue reading
Request your trial