Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01497/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01497-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re:

Bashas’ Inc., et al., 

Debtors, 

_________________________________

Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates,

Inc.

Plaintiff,

vs.

Bashas Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV12-1497-PHX-FJM

No. BK 09-16050-JMM

Adv. No. 12-AP-0226-JMM

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc. moves for withdrawal of the

reference in Adversary No. 12-AP-0226 (“Adversary Proceeding”) (doc. 2).

This action originated when Plaintiff filed a complaint against Bruce Bosley, The

Bosley Group, Inc., and Bashas’ Inc., asserting claims for copyright infringement. See

Robert Kubicek Architects & Assoc. Inc. v. Bosley, No. 11-CV-2112-DGC (Oct. 27, 2011

D. Ariz.) (doc. 1). In addition to monetary damages for infringement occurring from March

2007 through August 2009, id. ¶¶ 37, 39, 53, 85, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive

relief against all defendants, declaring Plaintiff’s rights and interests in the Copyrighted

Case 2:12-cv-01497-FJM Document 10 Filed 10/23/12 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

- 2 -

Works, requiring destruction of all copies of the Copyrighted Works in defendants’

possession, and enjoining further infringement, id. ¶¶ 134-36. Because Bashas had filed a

petition for bankruptcy protection on July 12, 2009, Bashas filed a motion to refer the claims

against it to the bankruptcy court. Id. doc. 9. Judge Campbell granted the motion and

ordered that “Plaintiff’s Claim against Bashas’ shall be severed in its entirety and the

Plaintiff’s Claim against Bashas’ only is referred to the Bankruptcy Court.” Id. doc. 26 at

2. 

The Bankruptcy Court subsequently granted Bashas’ motion to dismiss, concluding

that Plaintiff had not “filed claims for money damages either for pre-petition conduct, nor for

an administrative expense incurred during the chapter 11,” and therefore “Plaintiff cannot

participate in any distribution of any kind, under Bashas’ confirmed plan of reorganization.”

In re Bashas’ Inc., No. 09-BK-16050-JMM, Adv. No. 12-AP-00226-JMM (doc. 28). The

Bankruptcy Court further held that it “is unable to grant Plaintiff any other or ongoing relief.”

Id.

Plaintiff then filed a motion for clarification asking the Bankruptcy Court to clarify

whether its order also purported to dismiss and discharge Plaintiff’s claim for damages for

post-petition conduct and request for injunctive and declaratory relief. The Bankruptcy

Court denied the motion for clarification explaining only that, in light of Stern v. Marshall,

131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), it would not “stray into deciding matters that are outside of its

limited jurisdictional power.” We construe this statement as the Bankruptcy Court’s

recognition that it was without jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s post-petition claims. We

reject Bashas’ argument that the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting Bashas’ motion to

dismiss rendered this motion to withdraw the reference moot. The Bankruptcy Court could

not have dismissed claims that were beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, those claims remain

pending. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the reference as to

the remaining claims asserted against Bashas (doc. 2).

Because the remaining claims were originally presented in the action before Judge

Case 2:12-cv-01497-FJM Document 10 Filed 10/23/12 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

- 3 -

Campbell, Robert Kubicek Architects & Assoc. Inc. v. Bosley, No. 11-CV-2112-DGC (Oct.

27, 2011 D. Ariz.), we encourage the parties to file a motion asking Judge Campbell to

transfer this action to him and consolidate these remaining claims with 11-CV-2112-DCG.

See LRCiv 42.1.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01497-FJM Document 10 Filed 10/23/12 Page 3 of 3