Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02887/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02887-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

Dixie Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D.A.R.A. II, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

Kenneth Presutti and Cyndee Presutti,

husband and wife; Jesse Wintersteen and

Dara Wintersteen, husband and wife; and

Jeffrey J. Presutti. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2887-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises upon Defendants’ Notice of Bankruptcy, filed on August 1,

2008, advising the Court and all parties that Defendant Jeffrey J. Presutti filed a voluntary

bankruptcy petition on July 31, 2008. (docket # 76) The Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing is

attached to Defendants’ Notice as Exhibit A. 

By virtue of the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) with the

filing of a bankruptcy petition, all pending matters against Defendant Jeffrey J. Presutti will

be stayed until further order of the Court. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1); O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc.,

466 F.3d. 1104 (9th Cir. 2006).

In O’Donnell, “[t]he magistrate judge placed O’Donnell’s case on inactive

status and gave her 180 days to move to lift the stay, seek to reduce the claims against

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 77 Filed 08/04/08 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 -

Defendant to judgment in the bankruptcy court, or otherwise demonstrate a reasonable basis

to continue the case on inactive status. The magistrate judge warned O’Donnell that failure

to comply would result in dismissal of her complaint for failure to prosecute under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Eleven days after the expiration of the 180-day period,

O’Donnell filed an untimely motion seeking a continuance of her case on inactive status and

requesting an informal status conference. After O’Donnell failed to appear at the status

conference she had requested, the magistrate judge dismissed O’Donnell’s complaint without

prejudice under Rule 41(b). She did not appeal that dismissal.” Id. at 1108. “Although [t]he

general rule is that actions taken in violation of an automatic stay are void, the dismissal for

failure to prosecute was not void because it did not constitute a continuation of a judicial

proceeding against the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).” Id. (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). Thus, dismissal of O’Donnell’s complaint for violation of Rule 41(b)

was affirmed.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED hereby staying this lawsuit against Defendant Jeffrey J.

Presutti ONLY and placing it on inactive status until February 5, 2009 (180 days).

This lawsuit against Defendant Jeffrey J. Presutti ONLY will be dismissed

on February 5, 2009 (180 days) pursuant to Rule 41(b) (lack of prosecution) unless prior

to the scheduled dismissal date Plaintiff demonstrates in writing that Plaintiff has moved

to lift the stay in the bankruptcy court but the request has not been ruled upon or has been

denied; or Plaintiff has sought to reduce the claim(s) against the subject debtor to

judgment in the bankruptcy court in an adversary proceeding and the adversary

proceeding has not yet been adjudicated despite Plaintiff’s due diligence in seeking its

resolution; or Plaintiff has timely demonstrated a reasonable basis for continuance of the

lawsuit against Defendant Jeffrey J. Presutti on inactive status.

Any party may ask the Court to schedule an informal status conference

before the 180-day period expires to inform the Court what action, if any, has been

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 77 Filed 08/04/08 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 -

undertaken in the bankruptcy court that would permit this lawsuit against Defendant

Jeffrey J. Presutti to proceed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the lawsuit/case against all other

Defendants shall proceed as scheduled, Duval v. Gleason, 1990 WL 261364 (N.D.Cal.

1990), unless a motion to stay the entire case is timely filed and granted. Matter of

Lockard, 884 F.2d 1171, 1179 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing generally A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v.

Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876 (1986) (automatic

stay imposed under § 362(a)(1) is generally available only to the bankrupt and not to

non-debtor third parties or codefendants.).

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 77 Filed 08/04/08 Page 3 of 3