MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

 Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawtwincities.com

 

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 Districts bankruptcy court a Chapter 13
petition (later converted to Chapter 7). In re Alexander, No. BKY 98-33694 (Bankr. D. Minn.).
Alexanders 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 the bankruptcy court, this
Court, the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit 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. OBrien, 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 OBrien Order) [attached to Docket
No. 1 in this Courts 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 OBrien Order and Judge Magnusons 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 Alexanders and Stephenss 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 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 OBrien 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 Stephenss
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. OBrien, on
January 4, 2006, denied the Debtors motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and
denied in part Jensen-Carters motion. In short, Judge OBrien 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 OBrien.
The Debtors appealed the OBrien Order to this Court, where the appeal was docketed as
Case No. 06-CV-0693. This Court reviews a bankruptcy courts factual findings for clear error,
its legal determinations de novo, and its discretionary determinations for abuse of discretion. See
Am. Jur. Bankr. 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 elses claims to the property. Second, the Debtors contend that in light of this Courts
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 Stephenss baseless removal action and the Ramsey County eviction proceedings
were pending, Stephenss 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 on the same
day that he remanded the removal action (Case No. 01-CV-1087) to state court affirmed
- 6 -
Judge Masons stay order and dismissed certain counts of Stephenss complaint. Orders,
Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 01-CV-0633, Docket Nos. 74-75 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2001).
Shortly after Judge Kyles 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 Circuits 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 Courts Case No. 01-CV-0633 (the
stayed declaratory-judgment action). In a terse minute order entered on January 6, 2003, Judge
Kyle directed the clerks office to dismiss the case. Minute Entry, Stephens v. Jensen-Carter,
No. 01-CV-0633, Docket No. 80 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2003). The clerks 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 OBrien and Judge Kyle. See the OBrien 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 Stephenss 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 Stephenss 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 Magnusons 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 Magnusons 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 as she does now 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 and
there is not any basis in law for this argument 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 OBrien Order.
- 10 -
B. Motion to Withdraw Reference and for Stay Case No. 06-CV-2327
In May 2006, Stephens moved in her bankruptcy case for a stay and to withdraw the
cases reference from the bankruptcy court. Mot. to Withdraw Bankr. Courts 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 Stephenss 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. 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. 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 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 Stephenss 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 Stephenss
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).
Stephenss 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 Stephenss filing, in
March 2006, of amended schedules in her bankruptcy case. Accordingly, Stephenss motion is
untimely.
Further, on the merits, Stephenss 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 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.
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 courts orders are not laws regulating organizations or activities
affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of 157(d). If they were, no bankruptcy
court could ever consider what preclusive effect to give to another courts orders.
Stephens also argues that she is entitled to a jury trial on the effect of both Judge Kyles
order in Case No. 01-CV-0633, and of the Ramsey County district courts May 2004 order that
she was entitled to current possession of 875 Laurel.2 Somehow, according to Stephens, this
request for a jury trial on manifestly legal questions 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. 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
Stephenss 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 OBrien,
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. OBrien 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 Stephenss motion to withdraw the reference to the
bankruptcy court of underlying bankruptcy Case No. BKY 98-34858 is
DENIED.
b. G. Yvonne Stephenss 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 98694 C Original
bankruptcy case, filed 6/1998.
Stephens C D. Minn. 05\
CV33 (PAM) C
Purported removal of 04\
CV68 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. 9936 C
Appeal dismissed 11/2000.
Alexander C D. Minn. 99\CV\
0046, 99\CV18, 99\CV19
(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\
CV92 (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
98858 C Original bankruptcy case,
filed 8/1998.
Stephens C 8th Cir. 0567 C Appeal of
orders in D. Minn. cases 05\CV33 and
01\CV33. Appeal dismissed 5/2005.
Stephens C D. Minn. 0425 (JNE) C
Attempted appeal of reopening (by
Jensen\Carter) in 7/2004 of Stephenss
bankruptcy. Leave to appeal denied
3/2005. Appealed to 8th Circuit.
Stephens C D. Minn. 01\CV33 (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 0468 in 4/2005, along with
case 05\CV33. (In 11/2005, Stephens files, in
BKR 0468, a motion to withdraw her 1/2005
motion to reopen this case.) Referral order is
appealed to 8th Circuit.
Stephens C D. Minn.
06\CV93 (PJS) C
Appeal filed 2/2006 of
1/2006 summaryjudgment
order in ADV
0468.
Stephens C D. Minn.
06\CV27 (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\CV87
(RHK) C Purported removal in 6/2001
of eviction action. Remanded to
Ramsey County in 10/2001, not
appealed.
Alexander C 8th Cir. 9985 C Court
affirms BAP, 236 F.3d 431 (8th Cir.
2001).
Alexander C 8th Cir. BAP 9951 C
Appeal filed 7/1999. BAP affirms
bankruptcy court, 239 B.R. 911
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999). Alexander C 8th Cir. BAP 0125 C
Appeal filed 5/2001. BAP affirms
bankruptcy court, 270 B.R. 281
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001).
Alexander C 8th Cir. 0267 C Court
affirms BAP, 44 Fed. Appx. 32 (8th
Cir. 2002). Stephens C 8th Cir. BAP 0196 C Appeal filed
12/2001 of bankruptcy courts 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. 0296 C Court affirms BAP, 53
Fed. Appx. 392 (8th Cir. 2002).
Alexander C 8th Cir. BAP 0251 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 0264 C
Appeal filed 10/2002. BAP affirms
bankruptcy court, 289 B.R. 711
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003).
Alexander C 8th Cir. 0356 C Court
affirms BAP, 80 Fed. Appx. 540 (8th
Cir. 2003).
Stephens C 8th Cir. 0551 C Appeal
dismissed 2/2006.
Exhibit A
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 

 

          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.