FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 37 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 13 30 -GAP-DAB
ZINNIA I. CHEN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us
SIEMENS ENERGY INCORPORATED, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 2, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

App el la ntZin ni a Ch en , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s di sm is sa l o f he r 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a) (“ Tit le VII”) em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n la wsu it . Chen fil edhe r Tit le VII act io n a ga in sthe r fo rm er em pl oyer, Sie m en s Ene rg y Inc ., all eg in g t ha t Si em en s h addi sc riminat edag ai ns t h er i n p ro m ot io n de ci si on s o n a cco un t o f he r be in g a n a si anwom an . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d Ch en ’s cla im

forlac k o f st an di ng , up on lea rn in g t ha t Ch en , aft er fi li ng he r Tit le VII cl ai m , hadfil eda pe ti ti onforba nkrupt cy un de r Ch ap te r 7, a ndth us , th e ba nkrupt cy

tru st ee was th e o nl y

pa rty with st an di ng to pro se cu te th e Tit le VII cl ai m . Che n a rg ue s o n app eal th atth is di sm is sa l was inerro r. The ex is te nc e o f st an di ng “ is a juri sd ic ti on al pre requi si te to su itinfed eral
co urt.” Ala ba ma v. Un it ed Stat es Envt l. Pr ot . Agen cy , 87 1 F .2d15 48 , 15 54 (11 th Ci r. 19 89 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Si na ltra in al v. Co ca -Co la Co
. , 57 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 60 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The co m m en cem en t o f a b an kr

up tc y cas e cre at es anest at e co m pr is edof vi rtu al ly all o f th e d eb to r’s as se ts . 11 U.S.C. § 5 41 (a)( 1) . The Ba nkrupt cy Co de de fin es th e es ta te to in cl ud e “ al l l eg al or e qu it ab le in te res ts of t he de bt orin pr op erty as o f th e co m

m en cem en t o f th e cas e.” 1 1 U.S.C. § 54 1( a)(1 ). Thi s

2in cl ud es all pre -p et it io n c au se s o f act io n. Parker v. W en dy ’s Int ’l., In c. , 36 5 F .3d 12 68 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); Bar ge r v. Cit y o f Ca rt er sv il le , 34 8 F .3d12 89 , 12 92 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Accor di ng ly, th e trus te e, as th e rep res en ta ti ve of t he ba nkrupt cy es ta te , bec om es th e o nl y

pa rty with st an di ng to bri ng a cau se of a ct io n t ha t b el on gs to th e es ta te . Parker , 36 5 F .3dat 1 27 2; Bar ge r , 34 8 F .3dat 1 29 2. Un le ss th e cau se of a ct io n i s ab an do ne d p ur su an t t o 1 1 U.S.C. § 55 4, the rig ht s o f th e d eb to r in th atcau se of a ct io n a re ex ti ng ui sh ed
. Parker , 36 5 F .3dat 1 27 2. Pro pe rty no t ab an do ne d u nd er § 55 4 t ha t i s n otadm in is te reddu rin g b an krup tc y pro ceed in gs rem ai ns in th e es ta te . 11 U.S.C. § 5 54 (d ). Whe re a d eb to r fai ls to li stanin te res t on th e b an kr

up tc y sch edul es , th atin te res t re m ai ns inth e b an kr up tc y est at e. Parker , 36 5 F .3dat 1 27 2. Here, we co nc lu de th at Ch en ’s Tit le VII cl ai m be cam e pa rt of he r ba nkrupt cy es ta te up on th e fil in g of he r Ch ap te r 7 pe ti ti on . At th at po in t, Ch en lo st st an di ng , an d th e ba nkrupt c y t ru st ee be cam e th e on ly pa rty with st an di ng to br in g th e Tit le VII cl ai m , un le ss th e tru st ee la te r ab an do ne d th e cl ai m fro m th e e s t a t e , whi ch ha s no t oc cu rred . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l. AFFIRMED.

3