Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00495/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00495-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Columbia Mutual Insurance Company
Defendant
Perfecting New Life Full Gospel Baptist Church
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

COLUMBIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF

v. 4:05CV01118-WRW

(LEAD CASE)

PERFECTING NEW LIFE LEARNING 

CENTER, A/K/A PERFECTING CHRISTIAN 

DAYCARE, DONNA HARRIS, KAREN PHILLIPS,

BETTY SANDERS, GRACE ALLEN, CHARLENE 

JACKSON, KEITRA JONES, CHARLIA ROBINSON, 

LORETTA CAROLINA, KEVIN D. ALLEN, SR., 

CAROLYN ALLEN, TERRENCE WILSON, 

JANICE WILSON, CEDRIC MARKS, HENRY 

JOHNSON, AND JOHN DOES DEFENDANTS

PERFECTING NEW LIFE FULL GOSPEL BAPTIST CHURCH PLAINTIFF

v. 4:06CV00495-WRW

(CONSOLIDATED CASE)

COLUMBIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT

ORDER

On February 9, 2007, Plaintiff gave Notice of Bankruptcy Stay (Doc. No. 71). The

Bankruptcy Code provides that a petition for bankruptcy relief operates as an automatic stay of most

types of actions to collect or otherwise enforce a pre-petition debt.1

 

Perfecting New Life Full Gospel Baptist Church (“the Church”) declared bankruptcy, and

Plaintiff, a creditor, gave notice that the case must be stayed under the automatic stay provision of

the Bankruptcy Code. In response, the Church argues that the bankruptcy provision provides a

shield against creditors and does not give creditors the right to invoke the stay. 

Case 4:06-cv-00495-GTE Document 9 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Shaw v. Ehrlich, 294 B.R. 260 (W.D. Va. 2003) (citing In re Looney, 823 F.2d 788, 790

(4th Cir. 1987)).

3

Id. (citing In Re Simonini, 282 B.R. 604, 608 (W.D. N.C. 2002). 

 The stay comes into existence ‘automatically’ and ‘immediately’ upon the filing of a petition

in bankruptcy.2

 “The stay protects debtors, as well as creditors, by providing debtors ‘a breathing

spell’ from collection efforts and promoting ‘orderly and fair’ distribution among creditors.”3

Accordingly, the underlying case is stayed and administratively terminated pending the

conclusion of the bankruptcy. The Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Disclosure Deadlines (Doc. No.

74) is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2007.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-00495-GTE Document 9 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2