Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00940/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00940-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: )

WILLIAM P. IRWIN )

)

Debtor. )

____________________________________)

)

)

THOMAS H. OHANIAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

)

WILLIAM P. IRWIN, )

)

Appellee. )

____________________________________)

DISTRICT COURT CASE 

NO. CIV-F-05-0940 AWI

BANKRUPTCY COURT CASE

NO. 04-19318-A-7

ORDER GRANTING

TEMPORARY STAY AND

SETTING HEARING FOR

FEBRUARY 27, 2006

This is an appeal of a bankruptcy court order dated July 11, 2005, that granted a motion to

avoid judicial liens (“OAL”) on a subject property. On September 12, 2005, the bankruptcy

court issued a temporary stay of the OAL,; the bankruptcy court explicitly refused to grant a stay

lasting the duration of the appeal. The bankruptcy court stay ends 30 days after the issuance of

any subsequent order granting a motion to abandon the subject property. Though there is some

uncertainty, it appears that the bankruptcy court has issued such an order on January 13, 2006;

the stay will likely expire on February 13, 2006. Appellant Thomas Ohanian now seeks a stay of

the OAL from district court. He has filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to

allow for a hearing on February 13, 2006 or, in the alternative, for an order temporarily staying

Case 1:05-cv-00940-AWI Document 12 Filed 02/06/06 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

effectiveness of the OAL pending a full hearing on the matter in district court. Doc. 7. Appellee

William Irwin opposes both of Ohanian’s requests. Doc. 11. Irwin states that Ohanian could

have approached the district court for a more permanent stay of the OAL any time after

September 12, 2005. While this is true, neglecting to seek a more permanent stay while a

perfectly valid stay is in effect is not a wholly unreasonable course of action. Ohanian has been

tardy in seeking a stay from the district court since the issuance of the January 13, 2006, order

granting the motion to abandon the subject property, but a two week delay should not wholly cut

off the matter in this instance.

Irwin states that if the court is inclined to provide some relief, he would prefer holding a

hearing on February 13, 2006 rather than staying the OAL until such time as a hearing might be

held with the benefit of full briefing. That schedule (which envisions a reply brief being filed by

9 AM the morning of the hearing) is not feasible. Irwin acknowledges that “[a] cursory review of

Ohanian’s 23 pages of Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of his Motion will

reveal that such Motion involves complicated issues of law that will require significant legal

research and briefing on behalf of Appellee.” Doc. 11, at 2:8-10. The court agrees and notes that

Irwin is not the only one who requires time to digest the issues. A temporary stay of two weeks

to allow fuller briefing is the best compromise.

In order to aid this process, the court would like to focus the briefing on the most relevant

issues. From limited research, the court understands the applicable standard of review as

follows: “[A]ppellate courts are reluctant to entertain a request for stay unless it is demonstrated

that the trial judge is unavailable or that the request was denied by the trial judge. Nevertheless,

only in the former situation does the appellate tribunal normally exercise its own discretion; in

other instances (such as where the trial court has denied the stay) the appellate court simply

determines whether the trial court abused its discretion.” In re Wymer, 5 B.R. 802, 807 (B.A.P.

9th Cir. 1980). “In determining the propriety of issuing a stay pending an appeal, it is

well-settled that the decision of whether to grant or lift a stay is committed to the sound

Case 1:05-cv-00940-AWI Document 12 Filed 02/06/06 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

discretion of the court. Discretion will be found to have been abused when the judicial action is

arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only

where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable men could

differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial

court abused its discretion. It is equally well-established that on appeal to the district court from

bankruptcy court, issues of law are reviewed de novo while the district court is constrained to

accept the bankruptcy court’s findings of facts unless they are clearly erroneous.” In re

Blackwell, 162 B.R. 117, 119 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The effectiveness of the Order Granting Motion to Avoid Judicial Liens of the

Bankruptcy Court entered in Case No. 04-19318-A-7, is stayed until 6 PM Tuesday, February 28,

2006.

2. A hearing on Appellant’s Motion for Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal shall be

held at 1:30 PM Monday, February 27, 2006.

3. Any opposition to the motion shall be filed by 4 PM Wednesday, February 15, 2006,

2006.

4. Any reply to the opposition shall be filed by 4 PM Tuesday, February 21, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00940-AWI Document 12 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 3