HTML Document View

Full title: Motion for Relief from Stay (FEE) of Michelle Cordial. Fee Amount $188. Filed by Michelle Cordial. Hearing scheduled for 9/8/2021 at 10:30 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 5th Fl., Courtroom #4, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 8/18/2021. (Attachments: # (1) Notice of Motion # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Proposed Form of Order) (Rizzo, Louis)

Document posted on Aug 3, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 9 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Michelle Cordial (“Movant”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby move thiscourt (the “Motion”) pursuant to Section 362(d) of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”), Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001, and LocalRule 4001-1 of the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware(the “Local Rules”), for entry of an Order granting relief from the automatic stay imposed bySection 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in order to permit Movant to prosecute a personal injuryaction pending in the Williamson County - 26th Judicial District Court, in and for WilliamsonCounty, Texas against debtor Alamo Lakeline, LLC d/b/a Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline (with theabove-captioned debtors, the “Debtors”) and to proceed to collect any award against the Debtor’s1The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identificationnumber, are: Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas Holdings, LLC (2205); Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC (5717); AlamoVineland, LLC(1626); Alamo League Investments GP, LLC (1811); Alamo League Investments, Ltd. (7227);Alamo South Lamar GP, LLC (3632); Alamo South Lamar, LP (4563); Alamo Drafthouse Raleigh, LLC (5979);Alamo DH Anderson Lane, LLC (3642); Alamo Yonkers, LLC (4971); Alamo Mission, LLC (2284); Alamo Ritz,LLC (9465); Alamo Mueller, LLC (1221); Mondo Tees, LLC (6900); Alamo City Foundry, LLC (6092); AlamoMainstreet, LLC (2052); Alamo City Point, LLC (3691); Alamo Liberty, LLC (5755); Alamo Satown, LLC (6197);Alamo Marketplace, LLC (7041); Alamo Stone Oak, LLC (8398); Alamo Westlakes, LLC (4931); Alamo ParkNorth, LLC (1252); Alamo North SA, LLC (6623); Alamo Avenue B, LLC (8950); Alamo Slaughter Lane GP, LLC(6968); Alamo Slaughter Lane, Ltd, (5341); Alamo Cinema Group I GP, LLC (9537); Alamo Cinema Group I, LP(9656); Alamo Westminster, LLC (8906); Alamo Staten Island, LLC (7781); Alamo Aspen Grove, LLC (7786);Alamo Lakeline, LLC (5294); Alamo Sloans, LLC (9343).Through this Motion, Movant seeks the entry of an Order pursuant to §362(d) ofthe Bankruptcy Code and 4001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, granting relief fromthe automatic stay so that they may file and prosecute their claims to judgment in the State CourtAction and satisfy any award or other resolution they may obtain against the Debtors, their insurersand any other responsible individual or entity.Upon information and belief, any settlement or judgment in the State Courtaction that results in liability of the Debtors not covered by applicable insurance would be limitedin the amount of any self-insured retention, which would result in an allowed general unsecuredclaim against the Debtors estates, would be treated as any other allowed general unsecured claimin the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases and as prescribed in any order confirming the Debtors’ plan ofreorganization or liquidation. When weighing the above factors, the Court should lift the

List of Tables

Document Contents

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 21-10474-MFW ALAMO LAKELINE, LLC d/b/a ALAMO ) DRAFTHOUSE LAKELINE, et al., ) Hearing Date: September 8, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. ) Objection Deadline: August 18, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. EST Debtors.1 ) ______________________________________ ) MOTION OF MICHELLE CORDIAL, FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAYPURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE Michelle Cordial (“Movant”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby move thiscourt (the “Motion”) pursuant to Section 362(d) of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”), Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001, and LocalRule 4001-1 of the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware(the “Local Rules”), for entry of an Order granting relief from the automatic stay imposed bySection 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in order to permit Movant to prosecute a personal injuryaction pending in the Williamson County - 26th Judicial District Court, in and for WilliamsonCounty, Texas against debtor Alamo Lakeline, LLC d/b/a Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline (with theabove-captioned debtors, the “Debtors”) and to proceed to collect any award against the Debtor’s1The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identificationnumber, are: Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas Holdings, LLC (2205); Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC (5717); AlamoVineland, LLC(1626); Alamo League Investments GP, LLC (1811); Alamo League Investments, Ltd. (7227);Alamo South Lamar GP, LLC (3632); Alamo South Lamar, LP (4563); Alamo Drafthouse Raleigh, LLC (5979);Alamo DH Anderson Lane, LLC (3642); Alamo Yonkers, LLC (4971); Alamo Mission, LLC (2284); Alamo Ritz,LLC (9465); Alamo Mueller, LLC (1221); Mondo Tees, LLC (6900); Alamo City Foundry, LLC (6092); AlamoMainstreet, LLC (2052); Alamo City Point, LLC (3691); Alamo Liberty, LLC (5755); Alamo Satown, LLC (6197);Alamo Marketplace, LLC (7041); Alamo Stone Oak, LLC (8398); Alamo Westlakes, LLC (4931); Alamo ParkNorth, LLC (1252); Alamo North SA, LLC (6623); Alamo Avenue B, LLC (8950); Alamo Slaughter Lane GP, LLC(6968); Alamo Slaughter Lane, Ltd, (5341); Alamo Cinema Group I GP, LLC (9537); Alamo Cinema Group I, LP(9656); Alamo Westminster, LLC (8906); Alamo Staten Island, LLC (7781); Alamo Aspen Grove, LLC (7786);Alamo Lakeline, LLC (5294); Alamo Sloans, LLC (9343). The location of the Debtors’ service address is: 3908Avenue B, Austin, Texas 78751.

1

applicable insurance policies, to the extent insurance is available. In support of this Motion,Movant respectfully states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction of this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1408 and 1409. 2. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). 3. The statutory predicate for the relief requested herein is 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and§ 365(d)(2), Bankruptcy Rule 4001, and Local Bankruptcy Rule 4001-1. FACTS 4. On March 3, 2021 (the “Petition Date”), Debtor filed a voluntary petition for reliefunder Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court forthe Districtof Delaware (the “Court”). 5. Prior to the Petition Date, on or about December 24, 2017, Movant visited theDebtors’ property which is located at 14028 N. US 183, Bldg. D, Austin, Texas 78717 (the“Property”). 6. The Debtors were operating a cinema on this property in which, Movant fell andsustained serious injury, specifically to her ankle/foot that occurred at the Property. 7. As a result of the Debtor’s negligence, on November 11, 2019, the Movantcommenced a civil action in the Williamson County – 26th Judicial District Court in and forWilliamson County, Texas against Debtor Alamo Lakeline, LLC d/b/a Alamo DrafthouseLakeline. This Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (the “State Court Action”)8. The Movant’s claims in the State Court Action have been delayed as a consequenceof the Debtors’ chapter 11 filings and the automatic stay provisions set forth in 11 U.S.C. §362(a).

2

9. Upon information and belief, the Debtors are covered by insurance policiesapplicable to Movant’s claims in the event Movant is successful in the State Court Action. RELIEF REQUESTED 10. Through this Motion, Movant seeks the entry of an Order pursuant to §362(d) ofthe Bankruptcy Code and 4001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, granting relief fromthe automatic stay so that they may file and prosecute their claims to judgment in the State CourtAction and satisfy any award or other resolution they may obtain against the Debtors, their insurersand any other responsible individual or entity. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED 11. Movant is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in relevant part: On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, theCourt shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a)of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, orconditioning such stay… (1) for cause, including the lack ofadequate protection of an interesting property for such party interest. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). 13. “Cause” is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Int’l Bus. Machines v. Fernstrom Storage and Van Co., 938 F.2d 731, 735 (7thCir. 1991). Courts have found that cause for lifting or modifying the automatic stay exists inorder to permit litigation in another forum to liquidate a claim. See, e.g., In re Rexene ProductsCo., 141B.R. 574, 576 (Bankr. D. Del. 1992) (noting that the legislative history of § 362(d) showsthat cause may be established by a single factor such as “a desire to permit an action to proceed… in another tribunal.”); In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 113 B.R. 830, 838 n.8(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990) (citing liquidation of a claim as “cause” for relief); In re Holtkamp, 669F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1982) (affirming the lifting of the automatic stay by the Bankruptcy Court to

3

allow a personal injury suit against debtor to proceed to judgment). 14. At a hearing for relief from automatic stay under Section 362(d), the party opposingstay relief bears the burden of proof on all issues with the exception of the debtors’ equity inproperty.See In re Domestic Fuel Corp.,70 B.R. 455, 462-463 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987); 11 U.S.C. §362(g). If a creditor seeking relief from the automatic say makes a prima facie case of “cause”for lifting the stay, the burden going forward shifts to the trustee pursuant to Bankruptcy CodeSection 362(g). See In re 234-6 West 22nd Street Corp., 214 B.R. 751, 756 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997). 15. Courts often follow the logic of the intent behind §362(d) which is that it is oftenappropriate to allow litigation to proceed in a non-bankruptcy forum, if there is no prejudice to theestate, “in order to leave the parties to their chosen forum and to relieve the bankruptcy court fromduties that may be handled elsewhere.”In re Tribune Co.,418 B.R. 116, 126 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)(quoting legislative history of §362(d)) (internal citations omitted). 16. C ourts in this District rely upon a three-pronged balancing test in determiningwhether “cause” exists for granting relief from the automatic stay to continue litigation: (1) Whether prejudice to either the bankrupt estate or the debtorwill result from continuation of the civil suit; (2) Whether the hardship to the non-bankrupt party by maintenanceof the stay outweighs the debtor’s hardship; and (3) The creditor’s probability of success on the merits. See In re Tribune Co., 418 B.R. at 126. 17. Here, the facts weigh heavily in Movant’s favor on each of these three prongs. First,the Debtors will not suffer prejudice should the stay be lifted because Movant’s claims musteventually be liquidated before they can recover from the bankruptcy estate and/or any applicable

4

insurance coverage maintained by the Debtors. Movant’s claim against this Debtor is a negligenceand personal injury claim which does not present any factual or legal issues that will impact ordistract the Debtors from their reorganization or liquidation process. Indeed, because Movant’sclaims involve personal injury, they must be liquidated in a forum outside the Bankruptcy Court. 11 U.S.C. §157(b)(5) (“personal injury tort…claims shall be tried in the district court in whichthe bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claims arose…”). Furthermore, Movant’s have demanded a jury trial in the State Court Action and a jury trial is notavailable in this Court. 18. U pon information and belief, the Debtors’ liability in this matter is coveredby insurance. As such, any recovery by Movant’s will not affect the Debtors’ estates, or to theextent the Debtors’ applicable insurance policies contain any self-insured retention, any directrecovery against the Debtors by Movants would result in a prepetition claim, treated as any otherprepetition claim in the Debtors’ cases. Any liability over and above any self-insured retentionwould be borne by the Debtors’ insurers. See In re 15375 Memorial Corp., 382 B.R. 652, 687(Bankr. D. Del. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, 400 B.R. 420 (D. Del. 2009) (“when a paymentby an insurer cannot inure to the debtor’s pecuniary interest, then that payment should neitherenhance nor decrease the bankruptcy estate” (quoting In re Edgeworth, 993 F.2d 51, 55-56 (5thCir. 1993));see also In re Allied Digital Tech Corp., 306 B.R. 505, 510 (Bankr. D. Del 2004)(ownership by a bankruptcy estate is not necessarily determinative of the ownership of theproceeds of that policy. “[W]hen the debtor has no legally cognizable claim to the insuranceproceeds, those proceeds are not property of the estate.”In re Edgeworth,993 F.2d 51, 55-56 (5thCir. 1993). 19. Movant agrees that they are not seeking immediate recovery against the Debtors’

5

or the Debtors’ estate for any amount owed to them that is not covered by Debtors’ primary, excessor umbrella insurance as a result of any settlement or judgment of the claims against the Debtors inthe State Court Action. Upon information and belief, any settlement or judgment in the State Courtaction that results in liability of the Debtors not covered by applicable insurance would be limitedin the amount of any self-insured retention, which would result in an allowed general unsecuredclaim against the Debtors estates, would be treated as any other allowed general unsecured claimin the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases and as prescribed in any order confirming the Debtors’ plan ofreorganization or liquidation. Any liability over and above any self-insured retention would beborne by the Debtors’ insurers. As such, relief would not prejudice the Debtors and would permitthe immediate enforcement of any judgment against the Debtors’ applicable insurance. 20. Second, Movant will face substantial hardship if the stay is not lifted. MichelleCordial’s injuries were caused as a result of the Debtors’ negligence and Movant will beprejudiced by the continued delay resulting from the automatic stay due to the possibility ofwitnesses moving to unknown locations or who may pass away and the memory of events becomingless clear. This concern is heightened in the present case because of the nature of the Debtors’business. Any delay in permitting Movant to prosecute the State Court Action increases thelikelihood that these witnesses will not be located. 21. Movant resides in the State of Texas and the events which form the basis of herclaims occurred exclusively in Texas. If Movant is forced to litigate her claims in Delaware, shewould incur the increased expense of bringing attorneys, witnesses, and physical evidence toDelaware. “[O]ne of the primary purposes in granting relief from the say to permit claim liquidationis to conserve judicial resources.” In re Peterson, 116 B.R. 247, 250 (D. Colo. 1990). Judicialeconomy would be served by lifting the automatic stay and allowing Movant’s claims to be

6

liquidated in the forum where they are presently postured to be filed and adjudicated quickly. Inaddition, Movant is entitled to a jury trial for her claims and damages and a jury trial is notavailable in this Court. A jury trial in the State of Texas, in Williamson County – 26th JudicialDistrict Court in and for Williamson County, Texas is best suited to try all issues raised in the StateCourt Action. Accordingly,as the court inRexenesuggests, “[i]t will be often be more appropriateto permit proceedings to continue in their place of origin ….” In re Rexene, 141 B.R. at 576. 22. Lastly, the likelihood of success on the merits prong is satisfied by “even a slightprobability of success on the merits may be sufficient to support lifting an automatic stay.” In reContinental Airlines, Inc., 152 B.R. 420, 426 (D. Del. 1993). This prong also weighs in Movant’sfavor. The facts regarding the Debtors’ serious negligence set forth in the attached Complaintspeaks for itself. “Only strong defenses to state court proceedings can prevent a bankruptcy courtfrom granting relief from the stay in cases where…the decision- making process should berelegated to bodies other than [the bankruptcy] court.” In re Fonseca v. Philadelphia HousingAuthority,110 B.R. 191, 196 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990). 23. When weighing the above factors, the Court should lift the automatic stay to permitMovant to prosecute her claims against the Debtors and any other responsible individual or entityto judgment in the State Court Action and satisfy any award or other resolution they may obtainagainst the Debtors and any applicable insurance coverage. NOTICE 24. Pursuant to Local Rule 4001-(a), notice of this Motion has been provided to: (i)counsel for the Debtors; (ii) counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; (iii)counsel for the debtor-in-possession financing lenders; and (iv) the Office of the United StatesTrustee. The Movant submits that no other or further notice need be provided.

7

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests the entry of an order: (a) lifting theautomatic stay for cause to allow the State Court Action to continue through to judgment orother resolution; (b) permitting Movant to liquidate and satisfy such judgment or otherresolution granted, if any, from applicable insurance coverage available to the Debtors, tothe extent insurance is available; (c) directed that relief from the automatic stay be effectiveimmediately upon entry of an order granting this motion and that the 14 day stay provided inBankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3) not apply; and (d) granting such other and further relief as theCourt deems appropriate. REGER RIZZO & DARNALL LLP /s/ Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire (#3374) Brandywine Plaza West 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 477-7100 Attorney for Movant, Michelle Cordial Dated: August 4, 2021

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney hereby certifies on this 4th day of August, 2021, that a true and correctcopy of the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Codewas caused to be served upon all parties required to receive notice pursuant to De. Bankr. LR 4001-1 viathis Court’s ECF filing system and/or by United States Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following parties:
Table 1 on page 9. Back to List of Tables
Betsy Lee Feldman, Esquire
Jared W. Kochenash, Esquire
Matthew Barry Lunn, Esquire
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor
Rodney Square
1000 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Robert J. Feinstein, Esquire
Steven W. Golden, Esquire
Cia H. Mackle, Esquire
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP
780 Third Avenue
34th Floor
New York, NY 10017-2024
U.S. Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 King Street, Suite 2207
Lockbox 35
Wilmington, DE 19801
Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC
777 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Bradford J. Sandler, Esquire
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP
919 N. Market Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
REGER RIZZO & DARNALL LLP /s/ Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire (#3374) Brandywine Plaza West 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 477-7100 Attorney for Movant, Michelle Cordial Dated: August 4, 2021

9