Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01560/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES L. ABRAHAMS,

Debtor/Appellant

CASE NO. 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY

MOTION TO STAY PENDING

APPEAL AND AMENDED

MOTION TO STAY 

[DKT. NOS. 24, 30]

vs.

MATHIAS HENTZ,

 

 Creditor/Appellee.

In this case, pro se Appellant Charles Abrahams (“Appellant” or “Mr. Abrahams”) appeals an

order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court overruling Mr. Abraham’s objections to Claim No. 7 of Creditor

Mathias Hentz. (Dkt. No. 1.) Approximately nine months after filing his appeal, Appellant moves

this Court to enter an emergency stay of the sale of three properties pending the resolution of his

appeal. (Dkt. Nos. 24 and 30, “Emergency Motion” and “Amended Emergency Motion”.) For the

reasons below, the Court hereby DENIES Appellant’s motions to stay.

DISCUSSION

 Appellant filed an emergency motion to stay the “sale of three properties owned by the

Debtor and Carlanda LLC...[which] are subject to sales that have been approved by a judge who is

subject to a motion to disqualify.” (Emergency Motion at ¶ 1.) The properties in question

- 1 - 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-01560-GPC-BGS Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

include: 4330 53 Street, San Diego, CA; 4041 49 Street, San Diego, CA; and 4417 Parks rd th

Avenue, La Mesa, CA. Appellant provides no facts regarding the pending sale of these properties. 

Appellant asserts that there will be “irreparable injury” to him and Carlanda LLC if the properties

are sold. (Emergency Motion at ¶ 2.) In support of a stay, Appellant relies 11 U.S.C. § 363(m),

which states:

a sale or lease of property does not affect the

validity of a sale or lease under such

authorization to an entity that purchased or

leased such property in good faith, whether or

not such entity knew of the pendency of the

appeal, unless such authorization and such

sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.

11 U.S.C.A. § 363 (West)

In his Amended Emergency Motion, Appellant attempts to satisfy the four-part test that

courts consider when determining a stay pending appeal: 1) the likelihood that the moving party

will prevail on the merits of the appeal; 2) the likelihood that the moving party will suffer

irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; 3) whether granting the stay will result in substantial

harm to other parties; and 4) the effect of granting the stay upon the public interest. 10 Bankr. Prac.

for Gen. Practitioner § 4:19; see also In re Norwich Historic Pres. Trust, LLC, 2005 WL 977067

(D. Conn. Apr. 21, 2005). Appellant provides a series of allegations to support his claim for an

emergency stay, but the supporting arguments are vague, ambiguous, and often unintelligible 

Regardless of Appellants allegations, the Court finds Appellant’s emergency motions are

moot. As an initial matter, the sale of the three properties in question were authorized and

approved by final orders of the Bankruptcy Court after full notice and hearings thereon. (See Dkt.

No. 31, Trustee’s Opposition to Appellant’s Emergency Motions, Exhibits A-C, Bankruptcy Court

Sale Orders Nos. 581, 582, 611.) The escrows for each of the three property sales authorized and

approved by the Bankruptcy Court have already closed. (Dkt. No. 31, Declaration of Gary E.

Slater at 6.) Given that the sale orders have been finalized by the Bankruptcy Court after a full

opportunity for Mr. Abrahams to be heard, and given that the escrows for each property have now

closed, the Court holds that the issue is moot. An issue becomes moot when it becomes impossible

for the court to grant “any effectual relief whatsoever” on that issue to a prevailing party. See

Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992)

- 2 - 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-01560-GPC-BGS Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(citing Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895)). 

One of Appellant’s principle arguments in support of his motion to stay is founded on his

assertion that a denial of a stay will moot his appeal and therefore he will suffer irreparable harm if

a stay is not granted. There are two problems with this assertion. First, the sales have already been

finalized, rendering the emergency motions moot. As an additional matter, Appellant is under the

mistaken impression that he has appealed the entirety of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. However,

the only issue before this Court relates to Appellant’s appeal of “Claim 7” by Creditor Mathias

Hentz - this appeal does not include the orders authorizing the sale of the properties in question nor

does it include additional creditors. (See Dkt. No. 31, Exhibit E, Tunnicliffe Creditors Statement). 

Indeed, Creditor Hentz and the Trustee are the sole appellees in this litigation. Therefore, not only

is Appellant’s emergency motion moot, but the Court disapproves of Mr. Abrahams’ attempt to

assert claims that are not present in the pending litigation. In addition, the Court finds that

Appellant’s emergency motions are a waste of judicial resources and cautions Appellant from

filing future motions without any factual or legal basis. The Court has reviewed the numerous

claims filed by Mr. Abrahams in the previous bankruptcy matter and, as Judge Latham in the

Bankruptcy Court previously warned him, this Court also cautions Mr. Abrahams from filing

frivolous claims in the future as they could constitute grounds for sanctions. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Appellant’s emergency motions for

stay. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 8, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-01560-GPC-BGS Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 3