Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08146/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08146-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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 

Forrest Shepard, as Trustee of the Bill N. 

Shepard Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Pishit S. Patel, and Does 1-10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 11-08146-PCT-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint; or in the 

Alternative, Motion to Refer this Case to the Bankruptcy Court Adversary No. 03-0933 

(Doc. 8). The motion will be denied for the following reasons. 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case arises out of a partnership dispute related to the management of two 

motel properties in Arizona. In 1995, Bill Shepard, Defendant, and Defendant’s former 

wife, Ms. Patel, entered into a partnership for the purchase and operation of motel 

properties: relevant here, the Island Inn Resort and the Motel 6 West, both located in 

Arizona. In 1998, Mr. Shepard filed suit against Defendant and Ms. Patel in California 

state court for declaratory relief, accounting, dissolution, fraud, and breach of fiduciary 

duty related to Defendant’s alleged mismanagement of the properties. In 2002, 

Defendant and Ms. Patel filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Arizona; the pending 

litigation with Mr. Shepard was also removed to the bankruptcy court. 

Case 3:11-cv-08146-NVW Document 14 Filed 12/23/11 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

On November 29, 2007, the bankruptcy court issued its judgment, finding Mr. 

Shepard had a one-third partnership interest in both the Island Inn Resort and the Motel 6 

West and entering money judgments for Mr. Shepard against the Patels related to both 

properties. The bankruptcy court’s judgment also provided that a third-party 

management company would manage the properties until the money judgments for Mr. 

Shepard were paid, upon which time Defendant’s management company could resume 

management of the properties. While Mr. Shepard also requested dissolution of the 

partnership during those proceedings, the bankruptcy court denied that request. 

Plaintiff acquired Mr. Shepard’s interest in the properties upon Mr. Shepard’s 

death in 2008. Defendant acquired Ms. Patel’s interest in the properties upon their 

divorce in 2010. On February 15, 2011, a final decree was entered and the administrative 

case in the bankruptcy matter was closed. In the approved Second Amended Plan of 

Reorganization, the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction: 

(a) to hear and determine any claim or cause of action arising in or related to

 the Bankruptcy Cases; and (b) to adjudicate any causes of action or other 

 proceedings currently pending or otherwise referenced here or elsewhere in the 

 Plan . . . which are or may be pertinent to the Bankruptcy Cases and which the 

 Debtors may deem appropriate to commence and prosecute in support of 

 implementation of the Plan. 

(Doc. 8-3.) 

At some point, the judgment against Defendant was satisfied. Plaintiff and 

Defendant continued their partnership, and Defendant’s management company resumed 

managing the properties. In March 2011, Defendant requested a cash contribution from 

Plaintiff to pay property taxes and other expenses related to the properties. Defendant 

also requested that Plaintiff provide information to a bank for a proposed refinancing of 

the loan on the Motel 6 West property. After receiving these requests, Plaintiff 

demanded and was provided with all the partnership books and records for inspection and 

copying in April 2011. Plaintiff claims on information and belief, based on Defendant’s 

past conduct in the operation of the partnership and non-specified evidence gleaned from 

the books and records reviewed, that Defendant is engaging in misappropriation and selfCase 3:11-cv-08146-NVW Document 14 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

dealing with respect to the partnership assets. Plaintiff accordingly filed suit in this Court 

on September 16, 2011, claiming breach of fiduciary relationship with respect to the 

partnership and seeking accounting and dissolution of the partnership related to the Island 

Inn Resort and Motel 6 West properties (Doc. 1). Defendant filed his motion to dismiss, 

or to alternatively refer the case to the bankruptcy court, on October 17, 2011 (Doc. 8). 

II. MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata 

because the causes of action Plaintiff asserts are identical to the claims asserted in the 

earlier litigation, commenced in 1998, between Mr. Shepard and the Patels. 

A cause of action is barred under res judicata where there is “a judgment on the 

merits in a prior suit . . . involving the same parties or their privies based on the same 

cause of action.” Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 880 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(quoting Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326-27 (1979)). A party 

may not bring the same cause of action in a subsequent litigation based on “facts actually 

litigated [or] upon those points that might have been litigated” in the earlier action. 

Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1999). 

While the causes of action raised here mirror the causes of action raised by 

Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest in the 1998 litigation, Plaintiff’s claims are not based on 

the same facts and there has been no final judgment on these new claims. Rather, 

Plaintiff is seeking relief for Defendant’s actions that were taken in March and April of 

2011, after the earlier litigation was already completely resolved. Although Defendant’s 

alleged misconduct has not been pled in detail, the complaint does sufficiently allege that 

the misconduct occurred after the close of the bankruptcy proceedings. While the alleged 

misconduct, as well as the relief sought, is similar in nature to the claims raised in the 

earlier litigation, the facts supporting Plaintiff’s claims had not yet occurred at the time; 

accordingly, Plaintiff could not have litigated his claims for Defendant’s current alleged 

mismanagement in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are not barred 

by res judicata and Defendant’s motion to dismiss on this basis (Doc. 8) will be denied. 

Case 3:11-cv-08146-NVW Document 14 Filed 12/23/11 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

III. MOTION TO REFER 

Defendant further requests that, if his motion to dismiss is denied, this case be 

referred to the bankruptcy court. In determining whether to refer the matter to the 

Bankruptcy Court, the Court must first determine whether the Bankruptcy Court has 

jurisdiction to hear the proceeding at all. See Hacienda Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. 

United Artists Theatre Cir., 2009 WL 8238063, *2 (D. Ariz. 2009). A bankruptcy court 

has jurisdiction to “hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings 

arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). The 

bankruptcy can also hear non-core proceedings that are “otherwise related to a case under 

title 11.” Id. § 157(c)(1). Defendant claims that the Bankruptcy Court retains 

jurisdiction over this matter because in this action requires interpretation of the 

bankruptcy court’s earlier judgment, the bankruptcy court expressly retained jurisdiction 

over this matter, and the claims and issues asserted are related to the bankruptcy case 

(Doc. 13). 

While a bankruptcy court does have “the power to enforce its own orders pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. § 105[,]” Hacienda, 2009 WL 8238063 at *2 (citing In re Birting Fisheries, 

Inc., 300 B.R. 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A bankruptcy court’s original core jurisdiction 

‘continues' in order for it to enforce its orders, even after the case has been closed.”)), 

Plaintiff’s claims now do not require the interpretation or enforcement of the earlier 

judgment or any alteration to the plan of reorganization. Rather, the complaint raises new 

causes of action based on recent events that were not litigated in the earlier proceeding 

and do not relate to the bankruptcy proceeding. Indeed, both the bankruptcy court and 

Defendant recognized that Plaintiff would have the right to seek dissolution under state 

law if Defendant took post-judgment action that would warrant dissolution (Docs. 10-1, 

10-2). Here, the final decree has been entered and bankruptcy administrative case has 

been closed; while the causes of action raised now are similar to those that were resolved 

in the bankruptcy court proceedings, they are premised on new facts that occurred after 

Case 3:11-cv-08146-NVW Document 14 Filed 12/23/11 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

the close of those proceedings. Defendant has not established that Plaintiff’s complaint 

raises causes of action sufficiently “related to” the prior bankruptcy proceeding or that 

this litigation’s outcome would “have any effect on the bankruptcy estate” to warrant 

referral of this case. See In re ACI-HDT Supply Co., 2005 B.R. 231, 237 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 

1997). Since the bankruptcy court’s retention of jurisdiction was for claims or causes of 

action related to the bankruptcy case, that provision of the reorganization plan does not 

mandate referral of this matter to the bankruptcy court. Defendant’s request for referral 

to the bankruptcy court (Doc. 8) will accordingly be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint; 

or in the Alternative, Motion to Refer this Case to the Bankruptcy Court Adversary No. 

03-0933 (Doc. 8) is denied. 

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2011. 

Case 3:11-cv-08146-NVW Document 14 Filed 12/23/11 Page 5 of 5