United States District Court, E.D. California
In re SALMA H. AGHA, Debtor. No. 10-16183 DCN: RHS-1
RECOMMENDATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE FOR
THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CHAPTER 7 CASE NO. 10-16183 28 U.S.C.
§ 157(D) (CORE PROCEEDINGS BANKRUPTCY CASE)
H. SARGIS, BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGE
Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court shall transmit to the Hon.
Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief Judge of the Unites States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, a copy
of this Recommendation of Ronald H. Sargis, Chief Judge of
the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California,
for the Withdrawal of the Reference of the Above Captioned
OF RECOMMENDATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE FOR CHAPTER 7
BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 10-16183
undersigned Chief Bankruptcy Judge makes this recommendation
to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California (“District
Court”) to withdraw the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed
by Salma H. Agha, M.D. (“Debtor”), Bankr. E.D.
Cal. No. 10-16183, (“Bankruptcy Case”) which has
been referred to this United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of California (“Bankruptcy
Court”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Though the
bankruptcy case itself constitutes a “core
proceeding” (11 U.S.C. § 157(b)), a review of the
files in this Bankruptcy Case discloses that there are few,
if any, proceedings relating to the prosecution of the
bankruptcy case itself. Instead, all of the
“proceedings” relate to claims asserted by Debtor
that her rights and interests were violated in the bankruptcy
received her Chapter 7 discharge in 2010, and the Chapter 7
case was first closed on January 7, 2010.
September 2012, the U.S. Trustee requested that the
bankruptcy case be reopened and a Chapter 7 trustee
reappointed to administer what were asserted to be
undisclosed assets of the Debtor which continued to be
property of the bankruptcy estate. This issue was hotly
contested, with the bankruptcy judge ultimately determining
that the assets had not been disclosed and were property of
the bankruptcy estate, and then authorized the sale of said
assets by the Chapter 7 Trustee.
addressed in the Discussion section of this Recommendation,
Debtor has continued to contest the reopening of this case,
the determination that there was undisclosed assets, and the
sale of those assets by the Chapter 7 Trustee. Debtor's
contest of the reopening of the Bankruptcy Case and orders of
the bankruptcy judges have not been by appeals, but
indirectly through adversary proceedings and other
proceedings to have all orders in the Bankruptcy Case and
adversary proceedings vacated.
Debtor filed judicial complaints against, sought the
disqualification of, and the removal of the bankruptcy judges
assigned the Bankruptcy Case. Second, Debtor has commenced three
separate adversary proceedings asserting misconduct by the
U.S. Trustee, the bankruptcy judges, attorneys, and various
other persons. The first adversary proceeding was dismissed
by the bankruptcy judge. For the second and third adversary
proceedings, the referral of those adversary proceedings to
the bankruptcy judges in this District were withdrawn by the
District Court Chief Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
157(d). Third, Debtor has filed motions to vacate orders of
the court and to stay all proceedings in the Bankruptcy Case.
review of the file in this Bankruptcy Case discloses that
there are no “core” proceedings being presented
to the Bankruptcy Court. There are no assets being
administered and the Debtor is not seeking any further relief
under the Bankruptcy Code. Rather, she is challenging the
decisions and conduct of the bankruptcy judges and the
bankruptcy court process itself through the various adversary
proceedings. In surveying the motions filed by Debtor since
this case was reopened (the first time on the motion of the
U.S. Trustee and the second time on the motion of Debtor),
the motions seek to stay any proceedings in the Bankruptcy
Case, reverse prior orders in the Bankruptcy Case, and
disqualify the bankruptcy judge from conducting any
proceedings in the Bankruptcy Case. Further Debtor has filed
a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, requesting that the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals order that everything done in the Bankruptcy Case was
void and transfer the case to another District. Ninth Cir.
No. 16-73883. The Ninth Circuit recently dismissed
Debtor's Petition for Mandamus.
there are no “bankruptcy issues” being presented,
there is no property of the estate being administered, and
the Debtor is seeking to stay any proceedings from being
conducted in the Bankruptcy Case, the undersigned concludes
that there are no substantive “bankruptcy law
matters” to be adjudicated in the Bankruptcy Case.
Having the bankruptcy case sitting in the Bankruptcy Court,
with the adversary proceedings removed to the District Court
and various appeals and petitions filed with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the parties are currently spread
over three different levels of the federal judicial systems.
Further, given the nature of the motions filed in the
Bankruptcy Case, which overlap with the allegations in the
adversary proceedings before the District Court and the
appeals and petitions to the Ninth Circuit, having three
courts issuing decisions on the overlapping issues unduly
increases the risk of inconsistent rulings and the
unnecessary duplicative expenditure of judicial and party
the undersigned Chief Bankruptcy Judge recommends that the
District Court withdraw the Salma H. Agha Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Case, 10-16183, from this Bankruptcy Court and
assign the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case to a District Court
Judge. The undersigned further recommends that it be assigned
to a judge to whom has been assigned one of the adversary
OF GROUNDS FOR RECOMMENDATION
30, 2010, Debtor commenced a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy
case in the Eastern District of California (Bakersfield
Division). Debtor's counsel who filed and formerly
prosecuted the Chapter 7 case is William R. Cumming. Debtor
herself has been appearing in pro se in the Chapter
7 case since October 1, 2014, when she began filing pleadings
motion for relief from the automatic stay was filed by Aurora
Loan Servicing, LLC relating to real property in Las Vegas,
Nevada, which relief was granted. July 20, 2010 filed Order,
Dckt. 30. Debtor's First Meeting of Creditors was
concluded on August 27, 2010. August 30, 2010 Docket Entry
Report by Chapter 7 Trustee.
September 2010, two more motions for relief from the
automatic stay were filed. Relief was granted pursuant to one
motion relating to real property located in Bakersfield,
California (and denied as moot as to the debtor, the
discharge having been entered and the automatic stay
terminated as to Debtor by operation of law). Order, Dckt.
65. Relief was denied as to the second, the court determining
that the vehicle that was the subject of the motion was
leased by the Debtor, the lease was not assumed, and the stay
had terminated by operation of law. Order, Dckt. 63.
September 23, 2010, the bankruptcy discharge was entered for
October 2010, another motion for relief from the automatic
stay was filed relating to property in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Relief was granted pursuant to that motion for one of the
motions with respect to the rights of a creditor in another
Las Vegas, Nevada Property as to the bankruptcy estate (and
denied as to the debtor, the automatic stay having terminated
as to the Debtor by operation of law with the entry of the
discharge). Order, Dckt. 65.
January 7, 2011, the court closed the bankruptcy case.
Reopening of the Bankruptcy Case
September 2012, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to reopen the
bankruptcy case. Dckt. 68. The case was reopened by order of
the court filed on September 18, 2012. Dckt. 70. A Chapter 7
trustee was reappointed and that Trustee then sought
authorization from the court to sell what he asserted were
formerly undisclosed assets of the Debtor. The Chapter 7
Trustee asserted that such undisclosed assets continued to be
property of the bankruptcy estate, notwithstanding the prior
closing of the Bankruptcy Case, and under the Trustee's
control. Highly contentious litigation ensued, with the
bankruptcy judge ultimately issuing an order determining that
the assets were property of the bankruptcy estate and
authorizing the sale of the assets by the Chapter 7 Trustee.
Civil Minutes for January 23, 2013 hearing, Dckt. 110; and
Order, Dckt. 111.
vigorously opposed the Motion to Sell and has contested the
validity of the bankruptcy case being reopened. On August 1,
2013, Debtor commenced Adversary Proceeding No. 13-01086
asserting claims for violation of the automatic stay. That
Adversary Proceeding was dismissed on February 19, 2015. On
December 5, 2015, Debtor, in pro se, filed a Motion
to Reopen the Adversary Proceeding. That Motion was denied.
13-01086; Order, Dckt. 281.
October 1, 2014, Debtor, in pro se, filed an ex
parte Motion (the court having denied the motion for
order shortening time and no certificate of service filed)
MOTION [hand written]
DEBTOR'S NOTICE OF DOCKET FRAUD PERPETRATED BY U.S.
TRUSTEE JEFFREY VETTER, HIS ATTORNEYS LISA HOLDER, KDG LAW
FIRM AND JUDGE FREDRICK CLEMENT WHO INTENTIONALLY,
FRAUDILENTLY [sic] AND REPEATEDLY ALTERED PLAINTIFF'S
BANKRUPTCY MATTER DOCKET BY
1. CREATING A NEW CASE NUMBER FOR FILINGS
2. MISFILINGS UNDER THIS NEW CASE NUMBER
3. MISLABELING OF TRANSCRIPT TITLES
4. MISREPORTING OF TITLES ON MOTIONS, FILINGS AND HEARINGS .
. . .
Dckt. 126. The court denied the ex parte Motion on
November 4, 2014. Dckt. 141.
October 2, 2014, Debtor, in pro se, filed an ex
parte Motion titled:
MOTION: DEBTOR'S REQUEST FOR NOTICE REGARDING AMBUSHED
FRAUDULENT HIRING OF ATTORNEYS SEEKING REVENGE AGAINST DEBTOR
ALLOWED BY JUDGE CLEMENT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT
TO COMMIT GRAND THEFT FELONY OF STEALING DEBTOR'S
PROPERTIES . . . .
Dckt. 129. The court denied the ex parte Motion on
November 4, 2014. Dckt. 138.
December 31, 2014, Debtor, in pro se, filed a Motion
which she sought to have heard on January 8, 2015, using the
caption from Adversary Proceeding 13-01086, for Bankruptcy
Court Judge Richard Lee to disqualify himself in Debtor's
bankruptcy case and Adversary Proceeding 13-01086. Dckt. 144.
That Motion was denied on January 8, 2015. Order, Dckt. 175.
December 31, 2014, Debtor, in pro se, filed a second
Motion in this Bankruptcy Case (though identifying herself as
“Plaintiff-Debtor, ” which would ...