MICHAEL WILSON PLC 

Michael G. Wilson (VSB No. 48927) 

PO Box 6330 

Glen Allen, VA 23058 

Telephone: (804) 614-8301 

mike@mgwilsonlaw.com 

Counsel to Michele Craddock 

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

In re: 

LECLAIRRYAN PLLC,

 

 Debtor. 

 

Chapter 11 

Case No. 19-34574 (KRH) 

MOTION OF MICHELE CRADDOCK FOR 

LIMITED RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY 

COMES NOW Michele Craddock (“Craddock”), by undersigned counsel, and moves this 

Court for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto, granting her: (a) limited relief 

from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(d)(1) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the 

“Bankruptcy Code”) as discussed herein; (b) waiving the fourteen (14) day stay imposed by Rule 

4001(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”); and (c) for 

certain related relief. In support of this Motion, Craddock respectfully states as follows: 

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 

and the Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Virginia, dated July 10, 1984. 

2. Venue in this Court is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 83 Filed 09/18/19 Entered 09/18/19 16:18:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 6
2 

3. The bases for the relief requested herein are 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) and Bankruptcy 

Rules 4001 and 9014. 

II. BACKGROUND 

4. On September 3, 2019 (“Petition Date”), the above-captioned debtor (the “Debtor”) 

commenced this case by filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy 

Code. 

5. The Debtor remains in possession of its assets and continues to manage its business 

as debtor-in-possession pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 1107(a) and 1108. To date, no 

trustee or examiner has been appointed in this Chapter 11 case.

6. As of the date hereof, the Office of the United States Trustee has not appointed an 

official committee of unsecured creditors, and has, in fact, moved the Court to convert this case to 

one under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

7. The Debtor was founded in 1988 and operated as a national law firm that grew to 

more than 20 offices around the country. On or about July 30, 2019, the Debtor announced that 

the members of the firm had determined to dissolve the firm and wind-down the Debtor’s 

operations. 

8. Craddock was an employee, and later a shareholder, of the Debtor from 2003 to 

early 2015. In January 2015, Craddock asserted certain employment discrimination and related 

claims (the “Claims”) against the Debtor with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

In early 2016, Craddock commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia (the “District Court”). In December of 2015, the Debtor made a demand to 

arbitrate the Claims. 

9. The parties arbitrated those Claims during a ten day hearing in January of 2018 

before a panel of the American Arbitration Association (the “Panel”). By its Final Revised Award, 

dated October 16, 2018 (the “Award”), the Panel found the Debtor intentionally discriminated 

against her based on her gender and awarded Craddock $1,021,390.14 plus interest for back-pay 

($274,746.00), compensatory damages for the emotional distress ($20,000.00) Craddock 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 83 Filed 09/18/19 Entered 09/18/19 16:18:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 6
3 

experienced as a result of the Debtor’s intentional gender discrimination, and attorneys’ fees 

($678,151,50), including an enhancement of those fees related to, among other things, factors cited 

by the arbitration panel, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court for such enhancements. 

10. In addition, the amount of the Award included amounts to reimburse Craddock for 

the costs and expenses she incurred ($48,492.64) during the proceeding, which were significantly 

increased by the Debtor’s litigation and delay tactics during the proceeding. For example, the 

Debtor made baseless arguments1 and withheld key documents until witnesses were forced to 

admit under oath during the arbitration hearing that the documents existed. 

11. The Debtor has repeatedly represented to Craddock that insurance coverage exists 

for the Claims asserted by Craddock and reflected in the Award. However, despite repeated 

requests, the Debtor has refused to provide a copy of the Debtor’s Employment Practices Liability 

Insurance policy or even provide the name of the insurer. 

12. Craddock filed a motion with the District Court asking it confirm the Award and 

enter judgment on her behalf. The Debtor, however, objected to Craddock’s motion and crossmoved the District Court to reassert a Motion to Seal the Award, previously denied by the 

arbitration panel, and to correct and vacate certain portions of the Award related to the attorneys’ 

fees calculations and the enhancement awarded by the Panel. The Debtor did not, however, dispute 

$885,779.84 of the Award. The District Court entered an Order on June 19, 2019 denying the 

Debtor’s Motion to Seal and denying Craddock’s motion, vacating a portion of the Award and 

remanding the case to the Panel to correct the attorneys’ fees award. 

13. The parties have re-initiated the arbitration and fully briefed the issues requested 

by the Panel, and, upon information and belief, the Panel was prepared to enter a revised Award 

shortly after the Labor Day holiday. However, prior to the revised Award being entered, the 

 

1

 The Debtor repeatedly argued Craddock was not entitled to the protections of Federal 

employment laws because she was a shareholder, not an employee of the Debtor, despite clear 

documentation that at all times she was an “employee at will.” 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 83 Filed 09/18/19 Entered 09/18/19 16:18:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 6
4 

Debtor commenced this case and the action before the Panel was automatically stayed under 

section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

III. RELIEF REQUESTED 

13. Craddock requests that the Court enter an order, substantially in the form attached 

hereto as Exhibit A (the “Order”), granting her (a) limited relief from the automatic stay pursuant 

to section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to permit the Panel to enter the revised Award and, if 

necessary, to permit Craddock to move to confirm any revised Award before the District Court 

and any related proceedings therefrom, including appeals; (b) waiving the fourteen (14) day stay 

of the Order imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3); and (c) authorizing her to take such other 

and further actions as may be necessary to permit her to seek to recover the revised Award from 

the Debtor’s insurance provider, if any. 

IV. ARGUMENT 

14. Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, after notice and a hearing, 

the Court shall grant relief from the automatic stay for “cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Congress, 

however, did not define the term “cause” in the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, “courts must determine 

when discretionary relief is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.” See, e.g., Robbins v. Robbins (In 

re Robbins), 964 F.2d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). 

15. The Robins Court established a three-factor test for courts to use when determining 

whether “cause” exists: 

 (1) whether the issues in the pending litigation involve only state 

law, so the expertise of the bankruptcy court is unnecessary; (2) 

whether modifying the stay will promote judicial economy and 

whether there would be greater interference with the bankruptcy

case if the stay were not lifted because matters would have to be 

litigated in bankruptcy court; and (3) whether the estate can be 

protected properly by a requirement that creditors seek 

enforcement of any judgment through the bankruptcy court. 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 83 Filed 09/18/19 Entered 09/18/19 16:18:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 6
5 

Id.

16. Here, all three factors weigh in favor of granting the relief requested. While the 

Claims asserted by Craddock do arise under federal employment law, the parties have fully 

responded to the only briefing requested by the arbitration panel on the remaining issue related to 

the attorneys’ fees enhancement before the Panel. As was the case in Robins, the only thing that 

remains to happen is for the Panel to enter the revised Award, which may include re-entering the 

original Award, modifying same or incorporating the additional findings of fact in support of the 

enhancement. Thus, resolution of the limited remaining issue is not one that “require[s] the 

expertise of the bankruptcy court.” 

17. For much the same reason, it would be a complete waste of this Court’s time and 

the estate’s limited assets to have to re-litigate any of the issues raised in the Claims before this 

Court. The Claims have been fully litigated for almost four years before the Panel and the District 

Court, and the Panel is in a position and prepared to enter a revised Award addressing the concerns 

raised by the District Court in short order. Thus, granting the relief requested herein would impose 

little, if any, additional burden on the Debtor or estate. 

18. Finally, Craddock seeks only relief to permit entry of the revised Award and then 

to take any actions necessary to recover from any available insurance coverage for the Claims. To 

the extent the revised Award exceeds any insurance coverage available, Craddock will pursue any 

deficiency claim only pursuant to this Court’s normal claims process. 

V. CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Craddock requests that the Court enter 

the Order granting to her: (a) limited relief from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(d)(1) 

of the Bankruptcy Code to permit the Panel to enter the revised Award and, if necessary, to permit 

Craddock to move to confirm any revised Award before the District Court; (b) waiving the fourteen 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 83 Filed 09/18/19 Entered 09/18/19 16:18:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 6
6 

(14) day stay of the Order imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3); and (c) authorizing her to take 

such other and further actions as may be necessary to permit her to seek to recover the revised 

Award from the Debtor’s insurance provider, if any; and (d) granting to her such other and further 

relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: September 18, 2019 MICHELE CRADDOCK 

/s/ Michael Wilson 

Michael G. Wilson (VSB #48927) 

Michael Wilson PLC 

PO Box 6330 

Glen Allen, VA 23058 

(804) 614-8301 

mike@mgwilsonlaw.com 

Counsel to Michele Craddock 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 18th day of September 2019, I caused a copy of the foregoing 

pleading to be served by electronic means through the Court's ECF system and emailed to all parties 

receiving notices in this case in accordance with the Case Management Order. 

/s/ Michael Wilson 

Michael Wilson 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 83 Filed 09/18/19 Entered 09/18/19 16:18:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 6