In re Stanwyck

• Citation: 54 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 218,450 B.R. 181
• Decision Date: 20 May 2011
• Docket Number: Adversary No. 2:10–ap–02982–PC.,Bankruptcy No. 2:07–bk–19183–PC.
• Parties: In re Steven J. STANWYCK, Debtor.Steven J. Stanwyck, Plaintiff,v.Judy L. Bogen, et al., Defendants.
• Court: United States Bankruptcy Courts. Ninth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Central District of California

450 B.R. 181
54 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 218

In re Steven J. STANWYCK, Debtor.Steven J. Stanwyck, Plaintiff,
v.
Judy L. Bogen, et al., Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 2:07–bk–19183–PC.

Adversary No. 2:10–ap–02982–PC.

United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California,Los Angeles Division.

May 20, 2011.

[450 B.R. 185]

Steven J. Stanwyck, Santa Monica, CA, pro se.

[450 B.R. 186]

Andrew A. Goodman, Goodman Faith LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, Susan S. Baker, Nemecek & Cole, Sherman Oaks, CA, Martin K. Deniston, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Leslie S. Gold, Gershuni & Katz A Law Corporation, Edith R. Matthai, John M. Rygh, Los Angeles, CA, Jonathan B. Cole, Nemecek & Cole, Sherman Oaks, CA, Lori S. Ross, Redondo Beach, CA, for Defendants.James H. Banks, pro se.John O. Kent, pro se.Michael Ciapciak, pro se.Joan Pall, pro se.Marci Merliss, pro se.William I. Friedman, pro se.Edward D. Jones & Co., pro se.Robert Ciapciak, pro se.Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, CA, pro se.Michael Gless, Long Beach, CA, pro se.KMK Capital Corporation, pro se.Jeffrey Kirchner, pro se.Joanne Meepos, pro se.Leslie S. Klinger, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.Brickwall Financial Partnership, pro se.

MEMORANDUM DECISION PETER H. CARROLL, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before the court are various motions interposed by Defendants, Judy L. Bogen, et al., (sometimes collectively, referred to as the “Defendants”) in response to the complaint filed by Plaintiff, Steven J. Stanwyck (“Stanwyck”) ¹ in the above referenced adversary proceeding ². Appearances were stated on the record at the

[450 B.R. 187]

hearing. The court, having considered the Defendants' motions, Stanwyck's opposition thereto, the Defendants' replies, and the argument of counsel grants the relief requested in the motions based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law ³ pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1),⁴ as incorporated into FRBP 7052 and applied to contested matters by FRBP 9014(c).

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Stanwyck's First Bankruptcy Case.

On March 20, 1992, Stanwyck filed a voluntary petition under chapter 11 in Case No. 2:92–bk–22475–SB, In re Steven J. Stanwyck, Debtor, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. On August 5, 1992, the case was converted to a case under chapter 7 and David R. Haberbush (“Haberbush”) administered the estate as trustee. Stanwyck received a discharge on June 28, 2002. After a final distribution on account of allowed claims, Haberbush was discharged as trustee and the case was closed on July 17, 2002.

B. Stanwyck's Second Bankruptcy Case.

While his first case was pending, Stanwyck filed a second voluntary petition under chapter 11 in Case No. 2:02–bk–25398–SB, styled In re Steven Jay Stanwyck, Debtor, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, on May 28, 2002. On May 31, 2002, Stanwyck filed a motion seeking conversion of the case to a case under chapter 7. An order converting the case to chapter 7 was entered on June 10, 2002, and Alberta Stahl (“Stahl”) was appointed trustee. Stahl investigated Stanwyck's financial affairs and liquidated the assets of the estate. On January 14, 2003, Stahl filed a complaint in Adversary No. 2:03–ap–01040–SB, Stahl v. Stanwyck, objecting to Stanwyck's discharge. On September 22, 2003, a judgment was entered in such adversary proceeding denying Stanwyck's discharge pursuant to §§ 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(5). On October 19, 2006, Stahl filed her final account as trustee. On May 13, 2008, an order was entered discharging Stahl as trustee, exonerating her bond, and closing the case.

C. Stanwyck's Third Bankruptcy Case.

While his second case was pending, Stanwyck filed a third voluntary chapter 11 petition in Case No. 2:07–bk–19183–SB,

[450 B.R. 188]

styled In re Steven Jay Stanwyck, Debtor, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, on October 12, 2007. On April 2, 2008, Lucent Technologies, Inc., AT & T Corporation, and NCR Corporation filed a motion seeking dismissal or, alternatively, conversion of the case to a case under chapter 7 for cause pursuant to § 1112(b). The motion was joined by other creditors and parties in interest. On July 29, 2008, an order was entered converting the case to a case under chapter 7. After a series of interim trustee appointments and resignations, Jerry Namba (“Namba”) ultimately was appointed trustee on August 19, 2008.

During the two and one-half years this case has been pending,⁵ Stanwyck has commenced five adversary proceedings—four of which have alleged willful violations of the automatic stay and sought damages under § 362(k). Stanwyck commenced this adversary proceeding on November 2, 2010, by the filing of a 74–page document captioned: “Complaint For: Claim One: Complaint For Damages For Violation of the Automatic Stay 11 USC 362, Injunctions & Accounting[;] Demand for Jury Trial 28 USC 157(e)” (“Complaint”). In his Complaint, Stanwyck seeks “injunctive relief, damages, fees and costs under 11 USC § 362(k)(1).” ⁶ By virtue of his overlapping bankruptcy cases, Stanwyck has had the benefit of the automatic stay since 1992. In his Complaint, Stanwyck alleges that each of the named Defendants violated the automatic stay that was in effect at one time or another in one or more of his three bankruptcy cases during the past 19 years. Stanwyck further alleges that the 37 named Defendants engaged in a conspiracy and acted in concert with one another to violate the automatic stay in one or more of his bankruptcy cases. Stanwyck reasons that the Defendants should be jointly and severally liable for the damages he seeks under § 362(k) “[b]ecause of their concerted conduct ... [and] knowledge of the purposes of the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff Steven Stanwyck of his property.” ⁷ Stanwyck seeks a judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the following amounts: $8 million actual damages; $10 million for emotional distress; and $36 million punitive damages, together with injunctive and other relief. ⁸ Stanwyck also seeks a separate award of special damages as to each of the 37 Defendants. Stanwyck's claims for special damages total an additional $16,397,770,000.⁹

In response to Stanwyck's Complaint, Defendants, Judy L. Bogen, Neal Hersh, Joseph Mannis, Hersh, Mannis & Bogen, Edward M. Ross, Isabel R. Cohen, Steven E. Young, Jared A. Barry, Jeffrey Zabner, Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, Joan Ciapciak Stanwyck, Joan Stanwyck Family 2000

[450 B.R. 189]

Trust, Joan Stanwyck Family 2002 Trust, Kirsten Jane Stanwyck, Kirsten Stanwyck Living Trust, and Logan & Blue, Inc. filed motions seeking dismissal of the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for Stanwyck's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants, Stephen M. Lachs, ADR Services, Inc., Dennis N. Brager, John O. Kent, and Brager Tax Law Group filed motions seeking a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Defendants, Stephen M. Lachs, ADR Services, Inc., Isabel R. Cohen, Steven E. Young, Jared A. Barry, Jeffrey Zabner, and Freeman, Freeman & Smiley also seek an order declaring Stanwyck a vexatious litigant.

Defendants' motions were filed between November 18, 2010 and January 4, 2011, and originally set for hearing on December 21, 2010, January 4, 2011, or January 18, 2011.¹⁰ To permit Stanwyck to recover from hand surgery and respond to the motions, the court continued and consolidated the Defendants' motions for hearing to February 1, 2011. Stanwyck filed a written response in opposition to each of the motions. After a hearing on February 1, 2011, the court took the Defendants' motions under submission.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

This court has jurisdiction over this contested matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334(b). This matter is a core proceeding in that (1) Stanwyck's Complaint seeks damages under § 362(k) for alleged violations of the automatic stay, which is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G) and (O); and (2) Stanwyck's Complaint requires the court to enter an appropriate order to prevent vexatious litigation and an abuse of process. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Venue is appropriate in this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a).

III. MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND/OR FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT A. Standard for Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the court, upon motion of the defendant, to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).¹¹ Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).¹² “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability ... ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ ” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept plaintiff's legal conclusions as true.

[450 B.R. 190]

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

Twombly raised the bar for notice pleadings under Rule 8(a) such that a...