Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02072/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02072-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re:

Bashas’ Inc., et al.

Debtors.

__________________________________

Robert Kubicek Architects & Assocs. Inc.,

Appellant, 

vs.

Bashas’ Inc.; Bashas’ Leaseco Inc.;

Sportsman’s LLC, 

Appellees. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-2072-PHX-FJM

No. BK 09-16050-JMM

Adv. No. 12-AP-0226-JMM

ORDER

This is an appeal by Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc. (“Kubicek”) from

orders of the bankruptcy court dated July 13, 2012, In re Bashas’ Inc., No. 09-BK-16050-

JMM, Adv. No. 12-AP-00226-JMM (doc. 28) (“Adv. Proceeding”), and September 12, 2012,

Adv. Proceeding (doc. 36). In our order granting Kubicek’s motion to withdraw the

reference in a related matter, Robert Kubicek Architects & Assocs. Inc. v. Bashas’ Inc., No.

12-CV-1497 (D. Ariz. 2012) (doc. 10), we resolved each of the issues presented in this

appeal. Although we expected that Kubicek would withdraw its appeal in light of our ruling,

we nevertheless now have before us Kubicek’s opening brief (doc. 8), Bashas’ response brief

Case 2:12-cv-02072-FJM Document 12 Filed 01/11/13 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

- 2 -

(doc. 9), and Kubicek’s reply brief (doc. 11). 

In the adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court granted Bashas’ motion to dismiss,

concluding that Kubicek had not filed a proof of claim related to Bashas’ pre-petition

conduct, and therefore Kubicek “cannot participate in any distribution of any kind, under

Bashas’ confirmed plan of reorganization.” Adv. Proceeding (doc. 28). The bankruptcy

court further held that it “is unable to grant Plaintiff any other or ongoing relief,” in other

words relief related to post-petition conduct. Id. Kubicek then filed a motion for

clarification asking the bankruptcy court to explain whether its order purported to dismiss

and discharge Kubicek’s claims related to post-petition conduct. The bankruptcy court

denied the motion for clarification explaining 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.” Adv. Proceeding (doc. 36). In our order on the motion to withdraw

the reference, we construed this statement as the bankruptcy court’s recognition that it was

without jurisdiction to consider Kubicek’s post-petition claims. 12-CV-1497 (doc. 10 at 2).

The bankruptcy court could not have dismissed claims that were beyond its jurisdiction. We

therefore concluded that Kubicek’s post-petition claims remain pending. Id.

Nevertheless, Kubicek filed this appeal, again seeking clarification of whether the

bankruptcy court discharged its post-petition claims. We reiterate our holding that the

bankruptcy court did not dismiss claims for damages or for equitable relief related to postpetition conduct. 

IT IS ORDERED AFFIRMING the July 12, 2012 and September 12, 2012 orders

of the bankruptcy court. The clerk shall enter final judgment.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02072-FJM Document 12 Filed 01/11/13 Page 2 of 2