Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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

Lynnell Levingston, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Patricia Piburn, Victoria Earle, Steve

West, David Gregory, Jody Tapia, Carol

Haverstick, Erasmo Chavez, Mike Nuttail,

Mel Cody, Jerry McLain, Vicki Wilkins,

Kenneth Issacson, Thomas “Benny”

Garms, Roger Vanderpool, David

Denlinger, Raymon Piburn,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-08138-PCT-LOA

ORDER

This case arises upon the Court’s review of Defendant Piburn’s Notice of

Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy Filing. (docket # 71) First reviewed on December 2, 2009, this

Notice informs the Court and the parties of Plaintiff’s recent bankruptcy filing.

The Court has independently confirmed that Plaintiff Lynnell Levingston has

filed for bankruptcy protection on November 10, 2009 in the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Arizona in case No. BK-09-29095-PHX-RTB.

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

the filing of Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition, all pending matters against Defendants

are, and will remain 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).

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 73 Filed 12/04/09 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 -

Plaintiff’s bankruptcy docket, No. BK-09-29095-PHX-RTB, reflects Mr.

Lawrence J. Warfield, P.O. Box 14647, Scottsdale, Az 85267 was appointed as the

Bankruptcy Trustee for Plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate. A bankruptcy trustee is vested with the

exclusive right to sue on behalf of a bankruptcy estate. Title 11 U.S.C. § 323; Estate of

Spirtos v. One San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Numbered SPR 02211, 443 F.3d

1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he bankruptcy code endows the bankruptcy trustee with the

exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate.”). The Ninth Circuit makes clear that although

“the trustee may authorize others to bring suit, . . . the right to bring suit - or choose not to

do so - belongs to the trustee in the first instance.” Id. at 1175(citing with approval, among

others, Parker v. Wendy's Int’l, Inc., 365 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] trustee, as

the representative of the bankruptcy estate, is the proper party in interest, and is the only

party with standing to prosecute causes of action belonging to the estate.”)) .

In O’Donnell, plaintiff’s federal civil action was placed on inactive status to

give her sufficient time to move to lift a bankruptcy stay, to reduce her Title VII claims

against defendant to judgment in the bankruptcy court, or to otherwise demonstrate a

reasonable basis to continue her District Court civil case on inactive status. 466 F.3d. at

1107-08. O’Donnell was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order 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 deadline, O’Donnell filed an untimely motion,

seeking a continuance of her case on inactive status and requesting an informal status

conference. After a status conference hearing was set, O’Donnell failed to appear at the

hearing. O’Donnell’s complaint was dismissed 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). Dismissal of

O’Donnell’s complaint was affirmed.

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 73 Filed 12/04/09 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 -

Plaintiff is similarly advised that her lawsuit against Defendants will be

dismissed on or shortly after March 5, 2010 (90 days) pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P.,

(dismissal for lack of prosecution) unless prior to the scheduled dismissal date, Plaintiff,

with express written authorization from the Bankruptcy Trustee, or the Trustee demonstrates

that the bankruptcy stay has been lifted; Plaintiff or the Trustee has sought to reduce

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants to judgment in the Bankruptcy Court in an adversary

proceeding which has not yet been adjudicated despite Plaintiff’s or the Trustee’s due

diligence to do so; or Plaintiff or the Trustee timely demonstrates to the undersigned a

reasonable basis for continuance of this lawsuit on inactive status. Any party herein may

request the Court to schedule an informal status conference before the 90-day period expires

to inform the Court what action, if any, has been undertaken in the Bankruptcy Court that

would permit this lawsuit to proceed.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED staying this lawsuit in its entirety and placing it on inactive

status until March 5, 2010 (90 days) for dismissal without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to mail a copy of this Order

to Mr. Lawrence J. Warfield, P.O. Box 14647, Scottsdale, Az 85267.

Dated this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 73 Filed 12/04/09 Page 3 of 3