Opinion ID: 4398651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Smith I

Text: 1 We construe liberally pro se pleadings. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 3 Case: 18-10736 Date Filed: 05/20/2019 Page: 4 of 11 In 2007, Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy after defaulting on their mortgage loan (“Smith I”). The Smith I litigation remained pending for several years and resulted in a number of rulings from the bankruptcy court, from the district court, and from this Court. For background, see In re Smith, No. 07-20244, 68 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 763 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Sept. 17, 2012). On 1 June 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging Plaintiffs’ debt under Chapter 7. In July 2017, Plaintiffs moved the bankruptcy court to stay a writ of possession granted to HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“HSBC”), which Plaintiffs said violated the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay. On 5 December 2017, the bankruptcy court denied Plaintiffs’ motion as barred by res judicata. The bankruptcy court relied on the district court’s 9 August 2017 order denying a materially similar motion to stay filed by Plaintiffs in Smith II. The district court affirmed the denial on appeal; Plaintiffs now appeal that decision (docketed as Appeal No. 18-12349).