Marable v. Sam Pack's Ford Country of Lewisville, Ltd. (In re Emergency Room Mobile Servs.)
| Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Adversary No. 14–3018.,Civil Action No. 3:14–CV–2468–B. |
| Citation | 529 B.R. 676 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
| Parties | In the Matter of EMERGENCY ROOM MOBILE SERVICES, L.L.C., Debtor, John O. Marable, Jr., Appellant, v. Sam Pack's Ford Country of Lewisville, Ltd., Appellee. |
Areya Holder, Law Office of Areya Holder PC, Irving, TX, for Debtor.
Brian Patrick Shaw, Jr., Shackelford, Melton & McKinley LLP, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
In this bankruptcy appeal, pro se Appellant John O. Marable, Jr. asserts that the bankruptcy court erroneously dismissed the adversary proceedings he initiated in his personal capacity against Appellee Sam Packs Ford Country of Lewisville, Ltd. For the reasons that follow, the Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court's dismissal.1
This is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case initiated by and for Emergency Room Mobile Services, L.L.C. (the “Debtor”), whose sole owner and principal is the Appellant, John O. Marable, Jr. (“Marable”). Marable brought the adversary proceedings at issue in this appeal in his personal capacity against the Appellee, Sam Packs Ford Country of Lewisville, Ltd. (“Pack Lewisville”). He alleges that Pack Lewisville wrongfully pursued state criminal theft of service charges against him in an effort to collect a debt owed by the Debtor for unpaid mechanical services.
Marable's and Pack Lewisville's dispute dates back to December 8, 2011, at which time one of the Debtor's ambulances was brought to Pack Lewisville for repairs. Compl. ¶ 11.2 After various attempts to fix the vehicle over the ensuing months, Pack Lewisville finally finished repairing the ambulance in late March 2012. Id. On April 1, 2012, Pack Lewisville notified the Debtor that its work on the ambulance was complete, with the final invoice totaling $10,083.90. Id. The Debtor, however, was unable to pay Pack Lewisville's invoice at that time, and subsequently filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on August 6, 2012. Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.
In light of the Debtor's Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Marable says that he “understood it was okay to retrieve the vehicle from [Pack Lewisville].” Id. ¶ 16. What happened next is not entirely clear,3 but as Marable tells it, on August 20, 2012, “one of the Debtor's employees was directed to go test drive the [ambulance] to ensure [it] had been repaired correctly.” Id. ¶ 16. Mid-test drive, Marable “observed the ambulance at a [g]as station getting fuel.” Id. ¶ 17. Marable claims he then stopped and “noticed a clear liquid leaking” from the ambulance, at which point, the Debtor's “employee took the vehicle to the Debtor's mechanic at their maintenance facility,” where the leak was later fixed. Id. ¶¶ 17, 18. Meanwhile, Marable drove the Pack Lewisville employee, who rode along for the test drive, back to Pack Lewisville in “Marable's personal vehicle.” Id. ¶ 18.
Later that same day, another Pack Lewisville employee “called Marable several times and stated they wanted the vehicle returned,” which Marable claims “the Debtor had no obligation” to do in light of its previously-filed bankruptcy petition. Id. ¶ 19. Marable then notified another Pack Lewisville representative of the Debtor's pending bankruptcy. Id.
The next day, August 21, 2012, Pack Lewisville “filed a complaint with the [Lewisville] Police against” Marable for theft of services.4 Id. ¶ 21. Pack Lewisville also sent Marable a letter on August 23, 2012, “demanding payment for the [unpaid invoice].” Id. Pack Lewisville later informed the Police that Marable refused to pay, and on September 5, 2012, the Police obtained a warrant for his arrest. Id. On April 13, 2013, a grand jury “returned a True Bill of Indictment against Marable for the charge of Felony Theft of Services.” Id.
On February 25, 2014, with his criminal charges still pending, Marable filed an adversary complaint (the “Complaint”) against Pack Lewisville in the Debtor's bankruptcy case.5 Importantly, Marable filed these proceedings pro se and in his personal capacity. As explained in his Complaint, the “Debtor's Attorney” refused to join in these proceedings, advising Marable “that this matter should be filed [ ] ‘in State Court and NOT the Bankruptcy Court.’ ” Id. ¶ 47 n. 11.
Marable's Complaint asserts five related counts. Count I alleges that Pack Lewisville violated the automatic stay triggered by Debtor's bankruptcy under § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Id. ¶¶ 30–34. Count II asserts that Pack Lewisville violated the discharge injunction—entered in the Debtor's bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to § 524 —by aiding a “prohibited” criminal prosecution to collect a discharged debt. Id. ¶¶ 35–40. Count III requests an injunction “under [§ 105(a) ] to enjoin the prosecution in order to promote debtor reorganization and rehabilitation.” Id. ¶¶ 41–47. Count IV asks to hold Pack Lewisville in contempt under § 105(a) through an award to Marable of emotional distress and other damages allegedly stemming from Pack Lewisville's willful violations of the Bankruptcy Code. Id. ¶¶ 48–52. Finally, Count V seeks “attorney's fees pursuant to” § 362(k) based on Marable's estimation “that approximately $7,500 in counsel fees alone will be required to litigate this matter.” Id. ¶¶ 53–55.
After Pack Lewisville moved to dismiss, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion on May 14, 2014. R. at 187. In that hearing, the court summarized its ruling as follows:
[T]he Court is going to grant the motion to dismiss. I don't believe I have jurisdiction over this matter. Moreover, I also agree that under the very narrow circumstances under which I might have had jurisdiction, the claim was not pled in that way, and therefore, the motion should be granted both as it relates to 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Id. at 207–08. This ruling was later memorialized in a written order entered May 22, 2014. Id. at 2–3.
The bankruptcy court's May 22nd order also dismissed the Amended Complaint filed by Marable on the day of the hearing. See id. at 3 n. 1. This Amended Complaint contains largely the same allegations as Marable's initial Complaint, although the bankruptcy court did not address the merits of Marable's amendments, because they were filed “without leave of court or the consent of Defendants, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.” Id.
Marable subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal, and thereafter filed his appellant brief (doc. 5).6 Pack Lewisville later filed its appellee brief (doc. 6), to which Marable replied on December 7, 2014 (doc. 9), rendering this appeal ripe for consideration.
Marable raises five issues for the Court to consider in this appeal, including whether the bankruptcy court: (1) erred in dismissing Marable's Complaint for lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2) erred in dismissing Marable's Complaint for failure to adequately state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (3) abused its discretion in dismissing Marable's Amended Complaint, and (4) erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157.7 Doc. 5, Appellant Br. 4. Before addressing these issues, the Court begins with a review of the applicable standards of review in this case.
This Court applies the same general standard of review that the Fifth Circuit applies in reviewing a “bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.” In re SI Restructuring, Inc., 542 F.3d 131, 134 (5th Cir.2008) (citing U.S. Dep't of Educ. v. Gerhardt (In re Gerhardt), 348 F.3d 89, 91 (5th Cir.2003) ). Under this standard, “a bankruptcy court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id. (citing Gerhardt, 348 F.3d at 91 ). Also note that the Court “may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not [explicitly] relied on by the [bankruptcy] court.” United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675, 681 (5th Cir.2009) (citing LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County, Tex., 289 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir.2002) ).
A bankruptcy court's dismissal “under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” is generally reviewed de novo . In re The Complaint of RLB Contracting, Inc., 773 F.3d 596, 601 (5th Cir.2014) (citing In re Eckstein Marine Serv. L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.2012) ). However, “purely factual findings” made by the bankruptcy court in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion are reviewed for “clear error.” Id. (citing In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 314 ; Complaint of Tom–Mac, Inc., 76 F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir.1996) ). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, courts “may consider evidence outside the pleadings and resolve factual disputes.” Id. (citing Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 334 (5th Cir.2009) ; Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.1981) ). Ultimately, the burden of proof rests with “[t]he party asserting jurisdiction.” In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 320 (citing Budget Prepay, Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 605 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir.2010) ; Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001) ).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal of a party's pleadings for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A bankruptcy court's dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo and pursuant to the same legal standard applied by the lower court. Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir.2007). This standard requires a complaint to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In determining whether the complaint states a plausible claim, courts “must accept [all] well-pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial