Surgical Capital Solutions, Inc. v. Awaisi (In re Awaisi)

• Decision Date: 27 April 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-48712,Adv. Pro. No. 21-4098
• Citation: 627 B.R. 886
• Parties: IN RE: Muhammad S. AWAISI, Debtor. Surgical Capital Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Muhammad S. Awaisi, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan

627 B.R. 886

IN RE: Muhammad S. AWAISI, Debtor.Surgical Capital Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.Muhammad S. Awaisi, Defendant.

Case No. 20-48712

Adv. Pro. No. 21-4098

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed April 27, 2021

Joseph K. Grekin, Jeffrey J. Sattler, Schafer and Weiner, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Defendant, pro se.

OPINION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING, AS MOOT

Thomas J. Tucker, United States Bankruptcy Judge

On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding, seeking a money judgment against the Defendant-Debtor, and a determination that such debt is "excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (4) and (6)." On April 26, 2021, the Court entered a stipulated order in the main case which denied Defendant-Debtor a discharge, based on 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(10). (Docket # 226 in Case No. 20-48712 (the "no-discharge order")).

The Court concludes that the no-discharge order renders moot Plaintiff's nondischargeability claims in this adversary proceeding. This is because Plaintiff has received the dischargeability-related relief it was seeking in this adversary proceeding — namely, that any debt Defendant owes to Plaintiff will not be discharged in the Defendant's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. See, e.g., Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency v. Pettibone (In re Pettibone ), 577 B.R. 689 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017).

Thus, the Court is no longer able to grant Plaintiff any meaningful relief in addition to what it has already received. Cf. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld ), 535 B.R. 186, 193-96 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015), aff'd, 558 B.R. 825 (E.D. Mich. 2016), aff'd 698 F. App'x 300 (6th Cir. 2017) (dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, a creditor's adversary proceeding seeking an order denying the debtor a discharge under several provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a), where the debtor's debt to the creditor was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).); Mapley v. Mapley (In re Mapley ), 437 B.R. 225, 227-30 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010) (same).

Because Plaintiff's nondischargeability claims have been rendered moot, the Court is unable to grant Plaintiff a money judgment in this adversary proceeding. In the absence of authority to grant a determination of nondischargeability, this bankruptcy court no longer has authority or subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment for Plaintiff. See, e.g. Pettibone , 577 B.R. at 690 ; Cowan v. Ladosenszky (In re Ladosenszky ), 617 B.R. 275, 277-78 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020). That is because the Court's authority and subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in this adversary proceeding was dependant on its statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), to determine the dischargeability of Defendant-Debtor's debt to Plaintiff. See Longo v. McLaren (In re McLaren ), 3 F.3d 958, 965-66 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Snyder v. Devitt (In re Devitt ), 126 B.R. 212, 215 (Bankr. D. Md. 1991) (explaining that the...