Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Yba Nineteen, LLC

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 6, 2013

In Re: YBA NINETEEN, LLC, Debtor.
v.
INDYMAC VENTURE, LLC, Appellee. YBA NINETEEN, LLC, Appellant,

ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, filed by Appellant YBA Nineteen, LLC ("YBA" or "Debtor"). (ECF No. 11).

I. Background

On October 8, 2013, YBA, the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy case, filed a Notice of Appeal of an "Order Converting Case to One Under Chapter 7" ("Order Converting Case"), issued by the Bankruptcy Court on October 4, 2013. (ECF No. 1). The Order Converting Case converted the underlying bankruptcy proceeding from one under Chapter 11 to one under Chapter 7. The Bankruptcy Court ordered that "[p]ursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4), this case be converted to one under Chapter 7 for cause' including: (1) Debtor's continuing failure to comply with the Scheduling Order; (2) Debtor's failure to timely file [Monthly Operating Reports]; and (3) the substantial and continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation." Id. at 8 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)(4)(A), (E) & (F)).

On October 8, 2013, YBA filed an election to have the appeal heard by this Court. Id. This is the third appeal to this Court in this bankruptcy proceeding. See In re YBA Nineteen, S.D. Cal. Case No. 13cv1326-WQH-RBB; In re YBA Nineteen, S.D. Cal. Case No. 13cv2239-WQH-RBB.[1]

On October 15, 2013, YBA filed an Ex Parte Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (ECF No. 4). YBA moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8005 for an order staying the Bankruptcy Court's Order Converting Case.

On October 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying the Ex Parte Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (ECF No. 7). The Court found that YBA had failed to demonstrate that irreparable injury was likely in the absence of a stay of the Order Converting Case.

On October 30, 2013, YBA filed the Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (ECF No. 11). YBA states:

[T]he Debtor requests that the District Court consider the application based on the developments since its Order was issued on October 17, 2013. These developments include: 1. Debtor's concession that absent a stay pending appeal it has lost control over the initial relief from stay appeal and Indymac Adversary Action, as defined below, 2. Absent a stay pending appeal the Debtor has been, in essence, evicted from the Property of the estate; 3. Absent a stay pending appeal the Trustee will incur substantial legal costs and contracting costs that would be avoided if the order converting the case is overturned.

Id. at 4.

On October 31, 2013, Appellee IndyMac Venture, LLC ("IndyMac") filed an opposition to the Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (ECF No. 12). IndyMac contends that the motion should be denied for failure to show a likelihood of irreparable injury, or alternatively, the Court should set a briefing schedule to allow IndyMac to provide evidence to rebut the evidence offered in YBA's motion.

On November 1, 2013, YBA filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 13).

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8005 provides that a district court may order a stay of a judgment, order or decree of a bankruptcy court pending appeal. See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8005. "When deciding whether to issue a discretionary stay pending a bankruptcy appeal, courts use the following four factors: (1) Movant's likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; (2) significant and/or irreparable harm that will come to Movant absent a stay; (3) harm to the adverse party if a stay is granted; and (4) where the public interest lies." In re North Plaza, LLC, 395 B.R. 113, 119 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)); see also id. at 119-20 (noting that "these factors were imported from the standard for deciding preliminary injunctions or staying them pending appeal"). "[T]he person or entity seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. An injunction will not issue if the person or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.