Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01893/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01893-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

- 1 - 11cv1893

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET

METAL WORKERS’ PENSION PLAN OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA

AND NEVADA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11CV1893 JLS (POR)

ORDER STAYING CASE

(ECF No. 13)

vs.

ROBERT RALPH LARCEVAL and SUSAN

JANE BENHAM, individuals and doing

business as RRL MECHANICAL,

Defendants.

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a response to this Court’s Order directing Plaintiffs to

submit briefing demonstrating good cause for why the complaint against the defaulted parties

should not be dismissed for failure to move for default judgment within the time prescribed by

Local Rule 55.1. (Resp., ECF No. 13) In that response, Plaintiffs indicated to the Court for the

first time that Defendants filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on December 29, 2011, and accordingly

requested that the case be stayed “until and unless the Defendants’ bankruptcy is dismissed or

discharged.” (Id. at 2)

The automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) prohibits the “commencement or

continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that

was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to

recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this

Case 3:11-cv-01893-JLS-DHB Document 14 Filed 01/27/12 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 The automatic stay provision applies only to those defendants who have filed for bankruptcy.

Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir. 1987). The underlying

complaint in this action seeks relief against Defendants Larceval and Benham, “individuals and doing

business as RRL Mechanical,” and all of the allegations in the complaint pertain to the defendants

collectively. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1) There is no indication that RRL Mechanical has filed for

bankruptcy, and therefore the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) does not apply.

Nevertheless, the Court finds it appropriate to additionally stay the claims as against RRL Mechanical

as the claims are asserted against all defendants collectively and RRL Mechanical is comprised of the

individual defendants subject to the automatic stay. See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong

Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[A] trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient

for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending

resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”).

- 2 - 11cv1893

title.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Here, the individual defendants Robert Ralph Larceval (“Larceval”)

and Susan Jane Benham (“Benham”) have filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Accordingly, the

claims against them are automatically stayed under § 362(a)(1).1

 

A stay issued pursuant to § 362(a)(1) continues until the case is closed or dismissed, or the

discharge is granted or denied. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiffs to

submit to the Court within seven days of the date the bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed, or the

discharge granted or denied, a motion to lift the stay in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01893-JLS-DHB Document 14 Filed 01/27/12 Page 2 of 2