1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

COMES NOW, Martami, Inc. (“Movant”), through the undersigned counsel and very 

respectfully moves the Court for an Order pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 for relief from the 

Automatic Stay and, in support of this motion, states as follows: 

FACTS AND AVERMENTS 

1. On March 14th, 2006 Movant, was included in a filed a State Civil Action initiated by the 

Commonwealth; in case KEF-2006-135(1003) [“Autoridad de carreteras y transportacion de 

Puerto Rico vs. Tartack Brother y otros”] for the forced expropriation (“Expropiacion 

forzosa”) of properties in Barrrio Monacillos [Lots: 123-01, 123-02, 118-01, 124-01, 124-02, 

127-01] that belongs to movant. 

IN RE: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO, 

as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, ET AL. 

DEBTOR

___________________________________

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO, 

 as representative of 

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER 

AUTHORITY, 

 DEBTOR

 PROMESA Title III 

 No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

 (Jointly Administered) 

PROMESA Title III 

 No. 17 BK 4780-LTS 

Relief of the Automatic Stay Of acts 

against property under 11 U.S.C. 362 

D(1) “Cause”

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3614 Filed:07/18/18 Entered:07/18/18 18:19:21 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
2

2. During the litigation, Movant consigned the amount of $495,910.00 with the State Court 

Clerk’s office. 

3. The case is in its initial proceedings after the initial preliminary reports, which the last one 

was filed on November 6th, 2015. 

4. After the filing of the Complaint and years of litigation, on June 26th, 2017 the State Court 

issued and entered and Order to stay the proceedings before the Court and demanding full 

compliance with the Notice of Automatic Stay and of Procedures for Filing Motions for Relief 

from the Automatic Stay in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Title III Case. 

5. Movant complied with the provisions of Paragraph III. Q of Section III (Scheduling) of the 

Case Management Procedures in the instant case, as amended by the Order Further Amending 

Case Management Procedures (the “Order”, Docket Entry no. 1512 in Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS). 

6. Movant seeks relief from the automatic stay to the extent needed to continue the with the 

withdrawal of moneys in the amount of $495,910.00 consigned in the San Juan State Court in 

case KEF-2006-135(1003); plus any other pending matters, as allowed to do so by this 

Honorable Court, and pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Puerto Rico Oversight, 

Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”). If additional funds are obtained in the 

State Court, they will be forwarded to the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. 

7. Courts consider many factors in deciding whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay so 

that a creditor can pursue pending litigation in another forum. Relevant factors include: (a) The 

interests of judicial economy, (b) the degree of connection or interference with the bankruptcy 

case, (c) prejudice to the bankruptcy case or other creditors, (d) the presence of non-debtor third 

parties, (e) the Debtor’s misconduct, and (f) the probability that the creditor will prevail in the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3614 Filed:07/18/18 Entered:07/18/18 18:19:21 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
3

pending litigation. [See: In re Ulpiano Unanue-Casal, 159 B.R. 90, 95-96 (D.P.R. 1993), aff’d 

by 23 F.3d 395. (1st Cir. 1994). In the case at bar, these factors weigh in favor of Movant. 

8. The term “cause” is determined on a case-by-case basis. Courts have set forth 

various multifactor tests. [See: In re Granati, 271 B.R. 89, 93 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2001); In re 

Johnson, 115 B.R. 634, 636 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1989); In re Pro Football Weekly, Inc., 60 B.R. 

824, 826 (N.D. III. 1986); In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795, 799-800 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984). In the case 

of In re Ulpiano Unanue-Casal, 159 B.R. 90 (D.P.R. 1993), the court took into consideration 

the following factors: 

“(1) Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete 

resolution of the issues; (2) The lack of any connection with 

or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) Whether the 

non-bankruptcy proceeding involves the debtor as a 

fiduciary; (4) Whether a specialized tribunal has been 

established to hear the particular cause of action and that 

tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) Whether the 

debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial 

responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) Whether the 

action primarily involves third parties; (7) Whether litigation

in another forum would prejudice the interests of other 

creditors, the creditors’ committee or other interested parties; 

(8) Whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign 

action is subject to equitable subordination under Section 

510(c); (9) Whether movant’s success in the foreign 

proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the 

debtor under Section 522(f); (10) The interest of judicial 

economy and the expeditious and economical determination 

of litigation for the parties; (11) Whether the nonbankruptcy proceedings have progressed to the point where 

the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) The impact of the 

stay on the parties and the “balance of hurt.” 

(Bold, underline & Italics added) 

9. See: 159 B.R. at 95-96 (D.P.R. 1993) aff’d by 23 F. 3d 395 (1st Cir. 1994). The court also 

relied on two additional factors; i.e., the misconduct of the debtor and whether the creditor has a 

probability of prevailing on the merits. Id. at 96. 

10. Here, most factors weight in favor of lifting/modifying the stay for the Movant, including 

the following: 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3614 Filed:07/18/18 Entered:07/18/18 18:19:21 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
4

- Movant’s actions and request action lacks any connection with the bankruptcy 

proceedings. 

- Movant is not an investor, a fiduciary, nor a creditor seeking to take possession of 

assets of the Estate. 

- Movant’s action will not interfere with the bankruptcy case and with the 

Commonwealth’s reorganization. 

- No great prejudice to the estate would result. 

- The issues in the State Court do not involve bankruptcy law, nor require the expertise 

of the Bankruptcy Court. It is simply the withdrawal of consigned funds. 

- The bankruptcy case will not resolve Movant’s request/claim. 

- The relief sought before the State Court would result in a complete resolution of the 

issues and relieve the Bankruptcy Court from tasks that could be handled elsewhere. 

- The interest of judicial economy would be better served. 

- The Sate Court has the expertise to handle the requests/claims.

- The undue hardship of prolonging Movant’s request of withdrawal of moneys is not 

necessary for the Commonwealth to successfully complete the bankruptcy. 

- The relief sought by the Movant will not have a significant effect on the bankruptcy 

estate. 

- The merits of Movant’s request should be adjudicated by the district court. 

11. The automatic stay in State Court Civil Case KEF-2006-135 should be lifted pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) for cause, including but not limited to reasons stated in this motion for 

relief from stay. The automatic stay should be lifted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) because 

the adjudication of Movant’s claim in this case is not necessary in this bankruptcy process for an 

effective reorganization of the Commonwealth either. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting relief from 

the automatic stay allowing Movant to continue proceedings in Sate Court Civil case number 

KEF-2006-135 currently pending in the San Juan State Civil Court and any other further relief 

as the Court deems proper under Law and Equity. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3614 Filed:07/18/18 Entered:07/18/18 18:19:21 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY: That on this day, I electronically 

filed the foregoing motion with the Clerk of the Court using 

CM/ECF Filing system which will send notification to the 

parties and subscribed users. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

In Bayamon, Puerto Rico, this 18th day of July of 2018. 

/s/ Ruben Gonzalez Marrero, Esq.

Ruben Gonzalez MArrero 

Gonzalez & Velasco Law Offices, P.S.C. 

Carr. 174; Blq. 21-24 

Santa Rosa, Bayamon, PR 00959 

Tel. 787-798-8600 

E-mail(s): rgmattorney1pr@gmail.com 

[Gonzalez & Velasco Law Office, P.S.C.] 

rgm@microjuris.com 

[Ruben Gonzalez Marrero] 

Velascolaw@hotmail.com

 [Jaime L. Velasco Bonilla] 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3614 Filed:07/18/18 Entered:07/18/18 18:19:21 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5