Response to BLT’s Motion 1 No. 21-13797-SMG 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

In re LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, 

 Debtor. /

No. 21-13797-SMG 

Chapter 11 

RESPONSE AND JOINDER TO MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)

 Plaintiffs Samuel Katz and Lynne Rhodes (“Plaintiffs”) hereby submit their response and 

joinder to BLT Steak LLC and BLT Fish LLC’s (“BLT”) Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) (“Motion”). Plaintiffs have drawn a different conclusion than 

BLT as to the availability of relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) under the current record.1 Still, 

Plaintiffs join in BLT’s Motion if the Court extends relief from the stay to Debtor’s other 

creditors (such as Plaintiffs). 

 If the Court grants relief on BLT’s Motion, the Court should also extend that same relief 

to any other creditors (including Plaintiffs) who seek to obtain discovery on their claims against 

non-debtors. (Cf. Motion, ¶15.) The automatic stay “is designed to protect all creditors and to 

treat them equally.” Farm Credit of Cent. Fla., ACA v. Polk, 160 B.R. 870, 873 (M.D. Fla. 1993) 

(citation omitted). See also In re Conejo Enters., Inc., 96 F.3d 346, 352 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(automatic stay “is designed to provide an orderly liquidation procedure under which all 

creditors are treated equally,” same); Carver v. Carver, 954 F.2d 1573, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992) 

(“‘purpose of the automatic stay is to protect creditors in a manner consistent with the 

bankruptcy goal of equal treatment,’” quoting Hunt v. Bankers’ Trust Co., 799 F.2d 1060, 1069 

(5th Cir. 1986)). 

 

1

 The Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ motion for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) without 

prejudice. (See Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay 

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), ECF No. 222.) 

Case 21-13797-SMG Doc 571 Filed 02/28/22 Page 1 of 2
Response to BLT’s Motion 2 No. 21-13797-SMG 

 I hereby certify that the undersigned attorney is appearing pro hac vice in this matter 

pursuant to court order May 21, 2021. (ECF No. 135.) Cf. Local Rule 9011-4(B)(2). 

Dated: February 28, 2022 By: s/Ethan Preston 

Ethan Preston 

ep@eplaw.us 

PRESTON LAW OFFICES 

4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

Telephone: (972) 564-8340 

Facsimile: (866) 509-1197 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Samuel Katz and Lynne 

Rhodes, on their own behalf, and behalf of all 

others similarly situated

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the 

date below, by electronic transmission through the Court’s CM/ECF system upon all parties 

listed on the CM/ECF Service List and who receives a Notice of Electronic Filing for this 

document. 

Dated: February 28, 2022 By: s/Ethan Preston 

Ethan Preston 

ep@eplaw.us 

PRESTON LAW OFFICES 

4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

Telephone: (972) 564-8340 

Facsimile: (866) 509-1197 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Samuel Katz and Lynne 

Rhodes, on their own behalf, and behalf of all 

others similarly situated

Case 21-13797-SMG Doc 571 Filed 02/28/22 Page 2 of 2