HTML Document View

Full title: Motion for Relief from Stay . Fee Amount $188. Filed by Frank E. Lamothe III on behalf of John Doe (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing # 2 Court Service Page) (Lamothe, Frank) (Entered: 05/10/2021)

Document posted on May 9, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 7 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans (the “Archdiocese”), (2) the U.S. Central & Southern Province, Society of Jesus, (3) the Jesuits of New Orleans Province," and (4) Jesuit High School of New Orleans.Further, the Archdiocese has never been involved in the hiring, supervision, retention, or other employment-related decisions with respect to Jesuit High School of New Orleans.Plaintiff further requested that the claim be remanded back to CDC Orleans because once the Archdiocese was dismissed, the District 2 Court would no longer have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1334. Plaintiff requests that once the stay is lifted, he will move to dismiss the Archdiocese and again ask that his claim be remanded back to CDC Orleans where he can continue his case against the U.S. Central & Southern Province, Society of Jesus, the Jesuits of New Orleans Province," and Jesuit High School of New Orleans (together, the “Jesuit Defendants”).For the above and foregoing reasons, Doe respectfully requests that this Court lift the stay in Doe vs. Archdiocese of New Orleans

List of Tables

Document Contents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In Re: * * CASE NO. 20-10846 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF * THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS * SECTION “A” * * CHAPTER 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY NOW INTO COURT, comes John Doe, plaintiff in John Doe vs. Archdiocese of New Orleans No. 20-1368 (E.D.L.A.) (Brown, N.), through undersigned counsel, who respectfully requests that this Court lift the litigation stay pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Alternatively, Doe respectfully requests that the Court partially lift the stay to allow this claim to be remanded back to the action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana so that the Debtor can be dismissed from the suit with prejudice. BACKGROUND On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff John Doe filed a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans (“CDC Orleans”), bearing the docket number 2019-10040. The lawsuit relates to the sexual abuse the plaintiff endured as a child while he was a student at Jesuit High School of New Orleans. When this civil lawsuit was originally filed, the plaintiff listed as a defendant (1) The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans (the “Archdiocese”), (2) the U.S. Central & Southern Province, Society of Jesus, (3) the Jesuits of New Orleans Province," and (4) Jesuit High School of New Orleans. 1

1

After filing the original lawsuit, the plaintiff was informed that the Archdiocese of New Orleans was incorrectly identified as a defendant to this suit because the Archdiocese has never, in the history of Jesuit High School of New Orleans, been owned or operated by the Archdiocese. Further, the Archdiocese has never been involved in the hiring, supervision, retention, or other employment-related decisions with respect to Jesuit High School of New Orleans. Plaintiff was provided with an Affidavit attesting to this information which was signed by Rev. John F. Armstrong, S.J., an ordained Jesuit priest who presently serves as the Province Secretary of the U.S. Central and Southern Province of the Society of Jesus. See Exhibit “1”. The Archdiocese has not filed an Answer in the CDC Orleans proceedings. Counsel for the Archdiocese and counsel for Plaintiff reached a verbal agreement that Plaintiff would voluntarily dismiss the Archdiocese from the lawsuit. However, before a Motion to Dismiss could be filed, on May 1, 2020 the Archdiocese filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Chapter 11 Case.”). Plaintiff’s case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1452(a) and Rule 9027 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The case was allotted to Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown as Civil Action No. 20-1368. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal and Motion for Remand in the District Court requesting that the Archdiocese be dismissed from this action since it is not a proper defendant and has no liability to plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff further requested that the claim be remanded back to CDC Orleans because once the Archdiocese was dismissed, the District 2

2

Court would no longer have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1334. Counsel for the Archdiocese was informed of Plaintiff’s intention to request dismissal of the Archdiocese and remand to CDC Orleans prior to the filing of said motions, and no objection was expressed. Further, the Archdiocese did not file any objection to these motions in the District Court proceedings. On November 20, 2020, this Honorable Court ordered that the matter is stayed and administratively closed pending the bankruptcy proceeding involving the Archdiocese of New Orleans. The Court declined to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand until after the bankruptcy stay is terminated. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a lifting of the stay so he can dismiss his claims against the Archdiocese of New Orleans and have his case remanded to Civil District Court. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to § 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, relief from the automatic stay may be granted “for cause.”1 Overall, “[b]ankruptcy courts have broad discretion to fashion relief from the automatic stay.”2In determining whether “cause” exists to modify the stay to allow litigation to proceed in another forum, courts in this circuit consider twelve factors: 1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; 2. The lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; 3. Whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; 1 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). 2 In re Barnes, 279 F. App’x 318, 319 (5th Cir. 2008) 3

3

4. Whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; 5. Whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; 6. Whether the action essentially involves third parties and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the goods or proceeds in question; 7. Whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditors’ committee, and other interested parties; 8. Whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination under Section 510(c); 9. Whether the movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); 10. The interest of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; 11. Whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and 12. The impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of the hurt.3 Some courts in this circuit have also considered whether the creditor seeking to lift the stay intends to recover from non-estate property, such as insurance proceeds, for example.4 Here, several factors weigh in favor of lifting the stay, and the stay can be lifted in such a way that this Court can ensure that there is no risk to the bankruptcy estate. Lifting the stay to allow dismissal of the Archdiocese will not interfere in the Chapter 11 Case in any way. Because lifting the stay would allow for dismissal of the Archdiocese, it would ultimately be beneficial to the interests of other creditors, the creditors’ committee, and other parties to the Chapter 11 Case. Lifting the stay would be in the interest of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties because the actions against the remaining defendants could proceed without unnecessary delay of 3 In re Armstrong & Guy Law Office, LLC, No. 07-02459, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4394, at *3-4 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2007) (citing In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795, 799-80 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984)). 4

4

waiting for the Chapter 11 Case to conclude. Additionally, the impact on the Archdiocese, the plaintiff, and the remaining defendants would be positive, and none would be harmed by the lifting of the stay in order to allow for dismissal of the Archdiocese. However, if the stay is not lifted, Doe stands to suffer significant prejudice. His action against the proper defendants would be delayed, potentially for years, in order to allow for the conclusion of the Chapter 11 Case in which he is not a creditor and has no interest. Plaintiff requests that once the stay is lifted, he will move to dismiss the Archdiocese and again ask that his claim be remanded back to CDC Orleans where he can continue his case against the U.S. Central & Southern Province, Society of Jesus, the Jesuits of New Orleans Province," and Jesuit High School of New Orleans (together, the “Jesuit Defendants”). Plaintiff contends that the automatic stay should not apply to the claim against the Jesuit Defendants as they do not have an interest in common with the Archdiocese. The automatic stay “does not apply to actions against a non-debtor except in situations where assets of the bankruptcy estate would be at risk in allowing a court proceeding to continue against a codefendant.”5 In order to extend the stay to a non-debtor, “[t]here must be an actual, as opposed to an alleged or potential identity of interests, such that a judgment against the nonbankrupt parties would in fact be a judgment against the bankrupt party.”6 “The burden of proof to show that the [automatic] stay is applicable to a non-debtor is on the party invoking the stay.” Id. The party requesting the extension of the automatic stay would need to show, for example, “a formal tie or contractual indemnification had been made to create an identity of 4 See In re Fowler, 259 B.R. 856, 868 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001). 5 In re Xenon Anesthesia of Tex., PLLC, 510 B.R. at 111 (citing Matter of S.I. Acquisition, Inc., 817 F.2d at 1147–50; A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir. 1986)). 6 Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Mud King Prods., Inc., No. 12-3120, 2013 WL 1948766, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 9, 2013). (Beran v. World Telemetry, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 2d 719, 724 (S.D. Tex. 2010)). 5

5

interests between the debtor and non-debtor.”7 The Jesuit Defendants are not debtors in the Chapter 11 Case and do not share common interests with the Debtor. Proceeding with litigation against the Jesuit Defendants would not deplete the Debtor’s resources in any way. Plaintiff’s case is a personal injury non-core action in which a jury trial was requested. Lifting the stay and allowing the case to be remanded back to CDC Orleans would allow the case to proceed forward with the proper defendant and remove it from the bankruptcy where it doesn’t belong. Doe himself stands to suffer significant prejudice if this case continues to be stayed. These events occurred many years ago and Doe deserves the ability to proceed forward with his claim to resolution. The longer this case is stayed, the foggier memories may become, and the more likely it is that one or more witnesses or parties die or become infirmed before a trial could occur. The plaintiff’s therefore request that this Court fashion an Order to allow the case to be remanded back to Civil District Court where it originated and remove it from this bankruptcy proceeding in its entirety. CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons, Doe respectfully requests that this Court lift the stay in Doe vs. Archdiocese of New Orleans No. 20-1368 (E.D.L.A.) (Brown, N.). Doe stipulates that he will seek dismissal with prejudice of the Archdiocese since they are not the proper party defendant. Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court fashion an order to affect a partial lift of the 7 Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 349 F.3d at 825; see also Gigi’s Cupcakes, LLC v. 4 Box LLC, No. 3:17-CV-3009-B, 2019 WL 1767003, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2019). 6

6

stay in any manner and with any limits this Court deems appropriate to allow plaintiff’s claim against the Jesuit Defendants to proceed while limiting any impact on the Chapter 11 case. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Frank E. Lamothe III FRANK E. LAMOTHE, III (#07945) KRISTI S. SCHUBERT (#34870) JULIEN G. LAMOTHE (#38313) LAMOTHE LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 1760 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 704-1414 E-Mail: felamothe@lamothefirm.com kschubert@lamothefirm.com jlamothe@lamothefirm.com Attorneys for John Doe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the above and foregoing was filed using the Court’s electronic filing system, this 10th day of May 2021. I hereby further certify that I have served a copy of this document upon all parties in this matter. /s/ Frank E. Lamothe III FRANK E. LAMOTHE III (#07945) 7

7