Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01148/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy cases and proceedings under title 11

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 * Plaintiff Marks was warned in a separate bankruptcy appeal involving the same

bankruptcy proceedings (also pending before the undersigned) that a motion to reimpose

the automatic stay pending appeal would have to be noticed and filed properly under the

Civil Local Rules (Dkt. No. 20 in Case Number 10-00203).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE PATRICE BARNES MARKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC and

DOES 1-100,

Defendant - Appellee. /

No. C 10-01148 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO REIMPOSE THE AUTOMATIC

STAY PENDING APPEAL AND

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

In this bankruptcy appeal, pro se plaintiff Leslie Patrice Barnes Marks has again failed to

comply with the Civil Local Rules regarding the proper noticing of motions.* Civil Local Rule 7-

2(a) provides that any motion must be served and noticed for a hearing not less than 35 days after

service. Plaintiff served and noticed her motion to reimpose the automatic stay as to all creditors

pending appeal only 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing. This was improper.

Even assuming that plaintiff’s motion had been properly noticed, however, it would still

fail. The district court’s review of a bankruptcy court’s decision to grant relief from the

automatic stay is under an abuse of discretion standard. Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enters., 96 F.3d

346, 351 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the order of the bankruptcy court and the briefing

submitted by both sides on this motion, this order finds that plaintiff has not established that the

Case 3:10-cv-01148-WHA Document 27 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it granted relief from the automatic stay. Indeed,

plaintiff failed to even address the grounds for the bankruptcy court’s order: that all of plaintiff’s

claims were barred by res judicata, given that they were previously litigated in district court

before the Honorable Judge Susan Illston and judgment on the pleadings was entered against her. 

Rather, plaintiff’s motion appears to be an improper attempt to re-argue the same points that

Judge Illston previously rejected.

In any event, plaintiff’s appeal of this particular bankruptcy court order is also untimely. 

Under FRBP 8002, a litigant in bankruptcy court has 14 days from the entry of an order or

judgment to file a notice of appeal as to that order or judgment. Plaintiff’s appeal was noticed 16

days after the bankruptcy court entered its order granting relief from the automatic stay. In other

words, it’s two days too late.

For all of these reasons, both individually and collectively, plaintiff’s motion to reimpose

the automatic stay as to all creditors pending appeal is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions

against GreenTree, LLC, who is not even a party to this appeal, is also DENIED. Indeed,

GreenTree, LLC, was not even served with the instant motion. Finally, plaintiff’s request for a

hearing on this motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds the

instant motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01148-WHA Document 27 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2