| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
US District Court :BANKRUPTCY | CIVIL PROCEEDURE - order barring further filings related to certain matters- 1 -UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA G. YVONNE STEPHENS, LARRY K. ALEXANDER, and JOHN A. HEDBACK, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of G. Yvonne Stephens, Appellants, v. MARY JO A. JENSEN-CARTER, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Larry K. Alexander, Appellee. G. YVONNE STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. MARY JO A. JENSEN-CARTER, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Larry K. Alexander, and JOHN A. HEDBACK, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of G. Yvonne Stephens, Defendants. Case No. 06-CV-0693 Case No. 06-CV-2327 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER G. Yvonne Stephens, pro se. Larry K. Alexander, pro se. John A. Hedback, HEDBACK ARENDT & CARLSON, for John A. Hedback, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of G. Yvonne Stephens. Michael J. Iannacone, III, IANNACONE LAW OFFICE, for Mary Jo A. Jensen-Carter, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Larry K. Alexander. - 2 - Currently before the Court are two matters arising from the bankruptcies of G. Yvonne Stephens and Larry K. Alexander. First, in Case No. 06-CV-0693, the Court must rule on an appeal from an order granting partial summary judgment in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding (Case No. ADV 04-3468, Bankr. D. Minn.). The Court denies the appeal. Second, in Case No. 06-CV-2327, the Court must rule on a motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court of an underlying bankruptcy proceeding (Case No. BKY 98- 34858, Bankr. D. Minn.) and on a related stay motion. The court denies both motions. The Court also enters orders to prevent the vexatious litigants involved in this case from further congesting the dockets of this Court and of the bankruptcy court. I. BACKGROUND In June 1998, Larry Alexander filed in this District¡¯s bankruptcy court a Chapter 13 petition (later converted to Chapter 7). In re Alexander, No. BKY 98-33694 (Bankr. D. Minn.). Alexander¡¯s wife, Georgina Yvonne Stephens, filed a bankruptcy petition of her own in August 1998. In re Stephens, No. BKY 98-34858 (Bankr. D. Minn.). From these humble beginnings has come a torrent of lawsuits spanning over nine years. A single piece of property is the focus of these lawsuits: a house at 875 Laurel Avenue in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Alexander and Stephens (collectively, ¡°the Debtors¡±) have been fighting to keep this house since 1998. Although federal courts of all kinds ¡ª the bankruptcy court, this Court, the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ¡ª have turned them back again and again, the Debtors continue to abuse the court system in an attempt to hang on to this house. Meanwhile, the trustees of their respective bankruptcy estates, Mary Jo A. Jensen-Carter (trustee of the Alexander estate) and John A. - 3 - Hedback (trustee of the Stephens estate), have been unable to sell the house at 875 Laurel for the benefit of either estate. The current dispute can only be understood in light of the last nine years¡¯ worth of litigation. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis D. O¡¯Brien, in the order granting partial summary judgment that is currently on appeal before this Court, has done an admirable job of summarizing the underlying facts and the parties¡¯ positions in the litigation so far. Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, Jensen-Carter v. Hedback, Nos. ADV 04-3468, BKY 98-34858, BKY 98- 33694, slip op. at 2-5 (Bankr. D. Minn. Jan. 4, 2006) (the ¡°O¡¯Brien Order¡±) [attached to Docket No. 1 in this Court¡¯s Case No. 06-CV-0693]. In addition, Judge Paul A. Magnuson thoroughly recounted the procedural history of the Stephens and Alexander bankruptcies in his April 2005 order referring two then-pending district-court cases to the bankruptcy court for consideration in adversary Case No. ADV 04-3468. Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, Nos. 01-CV-0633, 05-CV-0033, 2005 WL 852446, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6480 (D. Minn. Apr. 11, 2005). In light of the O¡¯Brien Order and Judge Magnuson¡¯s April 2005 order, this Court need not repeat in full here the tangled procedural history of, and relationships among, the cases that have sprung from Alexander¡¯s and Stephens¡¯s 1998 bankruptcy filings. The Court has, however, prepared a diagram, attached as Exhibit A, that summarizes those cases and their relationships. The Court will provide further information about the various cases as necessary below. II. DISCUSSION A. Appeal From Summary Judgment ¡ª Case No. 06-CV-0693 In December 2004, Jensen-Carter initiated an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against the Debtors and Hedback to gain possession of 875 Laurel. Complaint, Jensen-Carter v. 1Technically speaking, Stephens alone, not Alexander, moved for summary judgment in bankruptcy court. Mot. by Def. G. Yvonne Stephens to Dismiss or for S.J., Jensen-Carter v. Stephens, No. ADV 04-3468, Docket No. 11 (Bankr. D. Minn. Sept. 7, 2005). But Alexander filed a memorandum in support of the motion, id. Docket No. 12, and Alexander purports to jointly appeal the O¡¯Brien Order to this Court, see Notice of Appeal, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV-0693, Docket No. 1 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2006). The Court therefore treats Stephens¡¯s motion for summary judgment in bankruptcy court as if it had been made by the Debtors collectively. - 4 - Stephens, No. ADV 04-3468, Docket No. 1 (Bankr. D. Minn. Dec. 16, 2004). Jensen-Carter and the Debtors cross-moved for summary judgment.1 Bankruptcy Judge Dennis D. O¡¯Brien, on January 4, 2006, denied the Debtors¡¯ motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Jensen-Carter¡¯s motion. In short, Judge O¡¯Brien found that the Debtors have no valid claim to 875 Laurel, and that at this point, the fight over the house is essentially between the trustees of their bankruptcy estates, Jensen-Carter and Hedback. The Court agrees wholeheartedly with Judge O¡¯Brien. The Debtors appealed the O¡¯Brien Order to this Court, where the appeal was docketed as Case No. 06-CV-0693. This Court reviews a bankruptcy court¡¯s factual findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its discretionary determinations for abuse of discretion. See Am. Jur. Bankr. ¡ì¡ì 3799, 3802 (2007). The Debtors¡¯ contentions on appeal, although phrased in various ways, boil down to two related arguments. First, the Debtors contend that when a Ramsey County district court decided, in a May 2004 ruling entered in an eviction proceeding that had been brought by Jensen-Carter, that Stephens was entitled to current possession of 875 Laurel, that decision forever cut off anyone else¡¯s claims to the property. Second, the Debtors contend that in light of this Court¡¯s disposition of various cases related in some way to the Ramsey County eviction action, this - 5 - Court has already decided that Stephens is entitled to 875 Laurel and the Court cannot revisit that purported decision. The Debtors¡¯ arguments are meritless. In April 2001, Stephens filed a complaint in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment that she owned 875 Laurel and raising miscellaneous constitutional and bankruptcy-law claims. That complaint was docketed as Case No. 01-CV-0633 and assigned, initially, to Judge Richard H. Kyle. Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 01-CV-0633 (D. Minn.). Meanwhile, around May 2001, Jensen-Carter initiated the eviction proceeding in Ramsey County district court to gain possession of 875 Laurel. To challenge that proceeding, in June 2001, Stephens filed in this court a ¡°notice of removal¡± of the Ramsey County eviction action. The notice of removal was docketed as Case No. 01-CV-1087, which was first assigned to Chief Judge James M. Rosenbaum, but was later transferred to Judge Kyle because it was related to Case No. 01-CV-0633. Jensen-Carter v. Alexander, No. 01-CV-1087 (D. Minn.). Because the purported removal had no basis in federal law, Judge Kyle remanded the case to the Ramsey County district court in October 2001. Order, Jensen-Carter v. Alexander, No. 01-CV-1087, Docket No. 35 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2001). Thus ended Case No. 01-CV-1087. While Stephens¡¯s baseless removal action and the Ramsey County eviction proceedings were pending, Stephens¡¯s declaratory-judgment action (Case No. 01-CV-0633) was still pending before Judge Kyle. In September 2001, Magistrate Judge John M. Mason stayed that case in light of the pending state-court eviction proceedings. Order, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 01- CV-0633, Docket No. 62 (D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2001). Judge Kyle, a month later ¡ª on the same day that he remanded the removal action (Case No. 01-CV-1087) to state court ¡ª affirmed - 6 - Judge Mason¡¯s stay order and dismissed certain counts of Stephens¡¯s complaint. Orders, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 01-CV-0633, Docket Nos. 74-75 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2001). Shortly after Judge Kyle¡¯s October 2001 orders remanding Case No. 01-CV-1087 and staying Case No. 01-CV-0633, the Debtors shifted their focus back to their bankruptcy cases (Case Nos. BKY 98-33694 and BKY 98-34858, Bankr. D. Minn.). In bankruptcy court, Stephens and Alexander filed various schedules and motions in both of their cases and appealed everything that could be appealed first to the Eighth Circuit¡¯s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and then to the Eighth Circuit. Not one of these appeals was successful. Between October 2001 and January 2003, while the Debtors were busy with their bankruptcy cases, nothing substantive happened in this Court¡¯s Case No. 01-CV-0633 (the stayed declaratory-judgment action). In a terse minute order entered on January 6, 2003, Judge Kyle directed the clerk¡¯s office to dismiss the case. Minute Entry, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 01-CV-0633, Docket No. 80 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2003). The clerk¡¯s office did as Judge Kyle instructed and closed the case. In May 2004, more than a year after Case No. 01-CV-0633 was closed, the Ramsey County district court ruled against Jensen-Carter in the eviction action. That court held that Stephens was entitled to current possession of 875 Laurel. From this constellation of cases and events, the Debtors now argue that the federal courts no longer have any power to deprive them of 875 Laurel. To the extent that the Debtors¡¯ argument is based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that argument has been rejected again and again, quite correctly, by Judge O¡¯Brien and Judge Kyle. See the O¡¯Brien Order; Stephens v. - 7 - Jensen-Carter, Nos. 01-CV-0633, 05-CV-0033, 2005 WL 852446, at *4-6, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6480 (D. Minn. Apr. 11, 2005). Nothing more needs to be said on the subject. The Debtors also seem to argue that when Judge Kyle remanded the improperly removed Case No. 01-CV-1087 to the Ramsey County district court, this Court forever ceded its right to adjudicate controversies over 875 Laurel to the state court. This argument has no legal basis, and the Court rejects it. Judge Kyle remanded the case to state court because it was improperly removed and for no other reason. See Report and Recommendation at 3, Jensen-Carter v. Alexander, No. 01-CV-1087, Docket No. 23 (D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2001) (¡°This state court action could not have been brought in federal court. It is an Unlawful Detainer action as to which no independent federal jurisdiction exists.¡±), adopted by Order, Docket No. 35 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2001). He did not rule on the merits of a single legal contention. Further, the Debtors argue that when Stephens¡¯s declaratory-judgment case (Case. No. 01-CV-0633) was dismissed in January 2003, that dismissal was a final adjudication on the merits that foreclosed federal courts from deciding any questions about 875 Laurel. The Court rejects this argument for two reasons. First, the January 2003 dismissal was the result of a ministerial order, not an adjudication on the merits, so that dismissal has no preclusive effect. Second, the Debtors conveniently ignore the fact that in January 2005, Stephens herself moved to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633. Mot. to Reopen Case, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 01-CV- 0633, Docket No. 81 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2005). When Stephens moved to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633 in January 2005, the adversary proceeding now on appeal to this Court was already pending in bankruptcy court, having been filed by Jensen-Carter in December 2004. Complaint, Jensen-Carter v. Stephens, No. ADV 04- - 8 - 3468, Docket No. 1 (Bankr. D. Minn. Dec. 16, 2004). Stephens resisted that adversary proceeding by filing a baseless notice of removal in this Court in January 2005, which gave rise to Case No. 05-CV-0033 before Judge Magnuson. Notice of Removal, Jensen-Carter v. Hedback, No. 05-CV-0033, Docket No. 1 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2005). Stephens filed her notice of removal on the very same day that she moved to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633. Judge Kyle ordered that Case No. 01-CV-0633 be reassigned to Judge Magnuson so that Stephens¡¯s motion to reopen could be considered together with the purported removal action (Case No. 05-CV- 0033). Judge Magnuson recognized that the core of the dispute over 875 Laurel was properly being litigated in bankruptcy court in adversary Case No. ADV 04-3468. Thus, in April 2005, he remanded the purported removal action (Case No. 05-CV-0033) to bankruptcy court, and referred the complaint in the declaratory-judgment action (Case No. 01-CV-0633) to the bankruptcy court for consideration in the adversary proceeding. Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, Nos. 01-CV-0633, 05-CV-0033, 2005 WL 852446, at *9, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6480 (D. Minn. Apr. 11, 2005). At that point, this case was relatively orderly: The main dispute over 875 Laurel was being litigated in bankruptcy court, in adversary Case No. ADV 04-3468. That case was docketed in the bankruptcy court as being related to the Alexander and Stephens bankruptcy cases. There was no then-pending district-court case, because Judge Magnuson¡¯s April 2005 order referred all matters in Case Nos. 05-CV-0033 and 01-CV-0633 to the adversary proceeding. - 9 - Apparently sensing that such a streamlined state of affairs could actually lead to an adjudication on the merits, in federal court, of rights in 875 Laurel, Stephens tried to keep her cases in this Court alive. She appealed Judge Magnuson¡¯s April 2005 order to the Eighth Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in May 2005. Judgment, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 05-2167 (8th Cir. May 20, 2005). Having failed to keep Case No. 01-CV-0633 alive, Stephens apparently decided that she should switch tactics and argue ¡ª as she does now ¡ª that when Case No. 01-CV-0633 was ministerially dismissed in January 2003, federal courts forever gave up their power to adjudicate any dispute over 875 Laurel. Perhaps recognizing that this argument is inconsistent with her January 2005 motion to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633, Stephens filed, in bankruptcy adversary Case No. ADV 04-3468, a purported ¡°withdrawal, without prejudice¡± of her motion to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633. Georgina Y. Stephens¡¯ Withdrawal, Without Prejudice Her Motion to Reopen Case File 01-CV-633, Jensen-Carter v. Stephens, No. ADV 04-3468, Docket No. 24 (D. Minn. Nov. 7, 2005). But that purported ¡°withdrawal¡± does not change the fact that, when she thought it was in her interest, Stephens wanted this Court to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633. Accordingly, even if some basis in law existed for the Debtors¡¯ argument that the dismissal of Case No. 01-CV-0633 should have put an end to federal-court litigation over 875 Laurel ¡ª and there is not any basis in law for this argument ¡ª the Court finds that the Debtors waived the right to make this argument when Stephens moved to reopen Case No. 01-CV-0633 and appealed the denial of that motion to the Eighth Circuit. The Court therefore denies the Debtors¡¯ appeal in Case No. 06-CV-0693 and affirms the O¡¯Brien Order. - 10 - B. Motion to Withdraw Reference and for Stay ¡ª Case No. 06-CV-2327 In May 2006, Stephens moved in her bankruptcy case for a stay and to withdraw the case¡¯s reference from the bankruptcy court. Mot. to Withdraw Bankr. Court¡¯s Ref., Mot. to Stay, In re Stephens, No. BKY 98-34858, Docket No. 76 (Bankr. D. Minn. May 23, 2006). The bankruptcy court granted the stay motion and referred the motion for withdrawal of the reference to this Court. The motion to withdraw the reference was docketed under a new case number (Case No. 06-CV-2327) and reassigned from Chief Judge James M. Rosenbaum to the undersigned because of its relationship to Stephens¡¯s pending appeal (in Case No. 06-CV-0693) of the summary-judgment order in the adversary proceeding initiated by Jensen-Carter (Case No. ADV 04-3468). See Bankr. Notice and Mot. to Withdraw Ref. and Mot. to Stay, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV-2327, Docket No. 1 (D. Minn. June 7, 2006). Under 28 U.S.C. ¡ì 157(d), a district court has discretion to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy case ¡°on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.¡± 28 U.S.C. ¡ì 157(d). Section 157(d) requires a district court, on a timely motion, to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy case if its resolution ¡°requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.¡± Id. In papers filed with the bankruptcy court, Stephens argued that the reference should be withdrawn ¡°for cause shown.¡± Mem. Supp. Removal and Withdrawal at 3, In re Stephens, No. BKY 98-34858, Docket No. 76 (Bankr. D. Minn. May 23, 2006), also filed in Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV-2327, Docket No. 1 (D. Minn. June 7, 2006). Yet in papers filed with this Court, Stephens argues that withdrawal of the reference is ¡°mandatory¡± under ¡ì 157(d). - 11 - Reply Mem. Supp. Mandatory Withdrawal at 1, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV-2327, Docket No. 2 (D. Minn. June 15, 2006). The Court denies Stephens¡¯s frivolous and untimely motion, whatever its basis. Stephens filed her bankruptcy case in August 1998. Jensen-Carter successfully moved to reopen the case in July 2004, after the Ramsey County district court ruled (in May 2004) that Stephens was entitled to current possession of 875 Laurel. Stephens immediately moved in federal district court for leave to appeal the reopening of her bankruptcy case. That motion was docketed in this Court as Case No. 04-CV-3425 and assigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen, who denied Stephens¡¯s motion. Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 04-CV-3425 (D. Minn.). Stephens appealed the denial to the Eighth Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in February 2006. Stephens v. Jensen-Carter (In re Stephens), No. 05-1851, 172 Fed. Appx. 685 (8th Cir. 2006). Stephens¡¯s main argument in favor of withdrawing the reference is that her bankruptcy case should not have been reopened in July 2004. But Stephens could have made that argument to this Court at any time since then. Instead, she brought her motion to withdraw the reference only in May 2006, roughly two years after the case was reopened (and eight years after it was first filed), and then only after Jensen-Carter and Hedback objected to Stephens¡¯s filing, in March 2006, of amended schedules in her bankruptcy case. Accordingly, Stephens¡¯s motion is untimely. Further, on the merits, Stephens¡¯s motion is frivolous. Stephens argues that because Judge Kyle dismissed Case No. 01-CV-0633, the bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction over her case, and addressing this jurisdictional argument ¡°requires analysis of laws outside of the Bankruptcy Code.¡± Reply Mem. Supp. Mandatory Withdrawal at 5, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, 2Mem. Supp. Removal and Withdrawal at 3, In re Stephens, No. BKY 98-34858, Docket No. 76 (Bankr. D. Minn. May 23, 2006), also filed in Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV- 2327, Docket No. 1 (D. Minn. June 7, 2006); Reply Mem. Supp. Mandatory Withdrawal at 6, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV-2327, Docket No. 2 (D. Minn. June 15, 2006). 3Reply Mem. Supp. Mandatory Withdrawal at 6, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 06-CV- 2327, Docket No. 2 (D. Minn. June 15, 2006). - 12 - No. 06-CV-2327, Docket No. 2 (D. Minn. June 15, 2006). But ¡ì 157(d) mandates withdrawal of the reference only when a case requires consideration of Title 11 as well as ¡°other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.¡± 28 U.S.C. ¡ì 157(d) (emphasis added). Bankruptcy courts must routinely consider what effect they should give to the orders of other courts. Laws governing the preclusive effect, or the effect on jurisdiction, of another court¡¯s orders are not laws ¡°regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce¡± within the meaning of ¡ì 157(d). If they were, no bankruptcy court could ever consider what preclusive effect to give to another court¡¯s orders. Stephens also argues that she is entitled to a jury trial on the effect of both Judge Kyle¡¯s order in Case No. 01-CV-0633, and of the Ramsey County district court¡¯s May 2004 order that she was entitled to ¡°current possession¡± of 875 Laurel.2 Somehow, according to Stephens, this request for a jury trial ¡ª on manifestly legal questions ¡ª requires ¡°consulting federal laws outside the Bankruptcy Code.¡±3 The Court finds that Stephens cannot, by waving in the air a demand for a jury trial, create an issue under ¡°other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce,¡± 28 U.S.C. ¡ì 157(d), that would require this Court to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court. The Court denies the motion, and directs the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in Stephens¡¯s bankruptcy case. - 13 - III. CONCLUSION The seemingly endless flow of frivolous and abusive filings by the Debtors must come to an end. The Debtors, aided in part by lackluster advocacy by the trustees of their bankruptcy estates, have taken advantage of the courts¡¯ busy dockets and the procedural confusion that the Debtors themselves have created to string this case out for over nine years. Judge O¡¯Brien, however, has found that the Debtors no longer have any interest in 875 Laurel, and this Court agrees. Accordingly, the Debtors have no further business in this Court or in the bankruptcy court. The Court therefore bars the Debtors from making any further filings related to their bankruptcies in this Court or in bankruptcy court, unless the filing is signed by an attorney admitted to this Court (who must comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), or unless the filing has been authorized in advance, in writing, by a bankruptcy judge, a magistrate judge, or a district judge of this District. (The Debtors may, of course, appeal this order to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.) ORDER Based on the foregoing and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. With respect to Case No. 06-CV-0693, the January 4, 2006 Order of Bankruptcy Judge Dennis D. O¡¯Brien in Case Nos. ADV 04-3468, BKY 98-34858, and BKY 98-33694 is AFFIRMED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 2. With respect to Case No. 06-CV-2327: - 14 - a. G. Yvonne Stephens¡¯s motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court of underlying bankruptcy Case No. BKY 98-34858 is DENIED. b. G. Yvonne Stephens¡¯s motion for a stay of underlying bankruptcy Case No. BKY 98-34858 is DENIED. c. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota is directed to LIFT THE STAY that it imposed on June 4, 2006, in bankruptcy Case No. BKY 98-34858. d. Case No. 06-CV-2327 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 3. G. Yvonne Stephens is BARRED from making, in this Court or in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota, any further filings of any kind relating to 875 Laurel Avenue, the Stephens bankruptcy, the Alexander bankruptcy, or the Jensen-Carter adversary proceeding, unless the filing is signed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, by an attorney admitted to this Court, or the filing has been authorized in advance by a judicial officer of this District. The Clerk of Court and the Clerk of Bankruptcy Court are directed to refuse to file papers that come within the scope of this Order unless the papers are signed by an attorney admitted to this Court or are accompanied by written authorization from a judicial officer of this District authorizing their filing. - 15 - 4. Larry K. Alexander is BARRED from making, in this Court or in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota, any further filings of any kind relating to 875 Laurel Avenue, the Stephens bankruptcy, the Alexander bankruptcy, or the Jensen-Carter adversary proceeding, unless the filing is signed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, by an attorney admitted to this Court, or the filing has been authorized in advance by a judicial officer of this District. The Clerk of Court and the Clerk of Bankruptcy Court are directed to refuse to file papers that come within the scope of this Order unless the papers are signed by an attorney admitted to this Court or are accompanied by written authorization from a judicial officer of this District authorizing their filing. Dated: September 27 , 2007 s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge ALEXANDER ¨C Bankr. D. Minn. BKY 98©694 ¨C Original bankruptcy case, filed 6/1998. Stephens ¨C D. Minn. 05©\ CV©33 (PAM) ¨C Purported ¡°removal¡± of 04©\ CV©68 filed 1/2005, remanded to bankruptcy court and closed in 4/2005. Remand order appealed to 8th Circuit. Jensen©\Carter ¨C Bankr. D. Minn. ADV 04©\ 3468 ¨C Adversary proceeding over 875 Laurel Ave., filed 12/2004. Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. 99©36 ¨C Appeal dismissed 11/2000. Alexander ¨C D. Minn. 99©\CV©\ 0046, 99©\CV©18, 99©\CV©19 (JRT) ¨C Appeal filed 1/1999 of order converting case to Chapter 7. Appeal denied, final judgment 8/1999. Appealed to 8th Circuit. Alexander ¨C D Minn. 98©\ CV©92 (DSD) ¨C Appeal filed 8/1998 of order lifting stay as to Chrysler. Appeal denied 1/1999, case closed, not appealed. STEPHENS ¨C Bankr. D. Minn. BKY 98©858 ¨C Original bankruptcy case, filed 8/1998. Stephens ¨C 8th Cir. 05©67 ¨C Appeal of orders in D. Minn. cases 05©\CV©33 and 01©\CV©33. Appeal dismissed 5/2005. Stephens ¨C D. Minn. 04©25 (JNE) ¨C Attempted appeal of reopening (by Jensen©\Carter) in 7/2004 of Stephens¡¯s bankruptcy. Leave to appeal denied 3/2005. Appealed to 8th Circuit. Stephens ¨C D. Minn. 01©\CV©33 (RHK, PAM) ¨C Declaratory©\judgment action about 875 Laurel Ave. filed 4/2001; stayed 9/2001, dismissed by minute order 1/2003. In 1/2005, Stephens moves to reopen. Motion is referred to BKR 04©68 in 4/2005, along with case 05©\CV©33. (In 11/2005, Stephens files, in BKR 04©68, a motion to withdraw her 1/2005 motion to reopen this case.) Referral order is appealed to 8th Circuit. Stephens ¨C D. Minn. 06©\CV©93 (PJS) ¨C Appeal filed 2/2006 of 1/2006 summaryjudgment order in ADV 04©68. Stephens ¨C D. Minn. 06©\CV©27 (PJS) ¨C Motion to withdraw reference and for stay, filed 6/2006. Jensen©\Carter v. Stephens ¨C Ramsey County district court ¨C Eviction action. Stephens is granted ¡°current possession¡± in 5/2004. Stephens ¨C D. Minn. 01©\CV©87 (RHK) ¨C Purported removal in 6/2001 of eviction action. Remanded to Ramsey County in 10/2001, not appealed. Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. 99©85 ¨C Court affirms BAP, 236 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 2001). Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. BAP 99©51 ¨C Appeal filed 7/1999. BAP affirms bankruptcy court, 239 B.R. 911 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999). Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. BAP 01©25 ¨C Appeal filed 5/2001. BAP affirms bankruptcy court, 270 B.R. 281 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001). Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. 02©67 ¨C Court affirms BAP, 44 Fed. Appx. 32 (8th Cir. 2002). Stephens ¨C 8th Cir. BAP 01©96 ¨C Appeal filed 12/2001 of bankruptcy court¡¯s denial of motion against Jensen©\Carter for violating discharge. BAP affirms bankruptcy court, 276 B.R. 610 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). Stephens ¨C 8th Cir. 02©96 ¨C Court affirms BAP, 53 Fed. Appx. 392 (8th Cir. 2002). Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. BAP 02©51 ¨C Appeal filed 9/2002. BAP affirms bankruptcy court, 288 B.R. 127 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003). Not appealed. Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. BAP 02©64 ¨C Appeal filed 10/2002. BAP affirms bankruptcy court, 289 B.R. 711 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003). Alexander ¨C 8th Cir. 03©56 ¨C Court affirms BAP, 80 Fed. Appx. 540 (8th Cir. 2003). Stephens ¨C 8th Cir. 05©51 ¨C Appeal dismissed 2/2006. Exhibit A |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
