Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02606/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02606-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

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 09cv2606 BTM (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09cv2606 BTM (POR)

ORDER STAYING CASE AND

v. SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

KENNETH GREEN FAMILY

INSURANCE TRUST, by and through its

trustee, VINCENT M. GIORDANO,

Defendant.

Vincent Giordano, the trustee of Defendant Kenneth Green Family Insurance Trust,

has filed for bankruptcy. Although Mr. Giordano’s personal bankruptcy appeared to be

unrelated to his role as Defendant’s trustee, the Court had concerns regarding the

applicability of the automatic stay to this action and asked the parties to brief the issue. The

parties have done so, and based on their briefing, the Court is concerned that any further

actions in this case could be wasted if the automatic stay is applicable. See Gruntz v.

County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]ctions taken in

violation of the automatic stay are void.”). 

Although there is one case from the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New

York which holds that an action against a debtor in his capacity as a trustee is subject to the

automatic stay, see Colin v. Mfr.’s Hanover Trust Co., 35 B.R. 904, 908–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

1983), the Court is unable to find any other authority on the subject. There may be good

grounds to distinguish that case, but the risk of wasting judicial resources on this case is too

Case 3:09-cv-02606-BTM-POR Document 29 Filed 07/21/10 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 09cv2606 BTM (POR)

great, especially if Plaintiff can easily seek an order from the bankruptcy court establishing

either that the automatic stay does not apply here, or if it does, that this case should be

exempted.

The Court therefore STAYS this case pending an order from the bankruptcy court.

If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, it must seek an order from the bankruptcy court

regarding the applicability of the automatic stay to this case. Without such an order, this

case will remain stayed. The Court sets a status conference for December 15, 2010 at 3:00

p.m. If Plaintiff obtains the bankruptcy court order before then, it must move to lift the stay

and cancel the status conference, and attach a copy of the order to its motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02606-BTM-POR Document 29 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2