Opinion
20-cv-2559 (PKC)
06-24-2021
ORDER
P. Kevin Castel United States District Judge
The Court has reviewed the letters of City View dated June 22, 2021 and June 23, 2021 and plaintiffs' letter of June 23, 2021. The June 8 and 9 Orders of this Court remains as written.
The June 8 Order stayed enforcement of the judgment as of the time of entry of that Order which is when the parties received notice of that Order. The June 8 Order maintains the status quo. A restraining notice was indisputably served prior to the stay and plaintiffs may take no further steps to reduce to possession the restrained funds of City View in the hands of the third party. Similarly, the stay, as written, has no retroactive application requiring the vacatur of the restraining notice and, in the exercise of discretion, the Court will not modify the stay to grant retroactive application or require vacatur of the restraining notice. The circumstance is not materially different than the result that would ensue if the bankruptcy code's section 362 automatic stay was triggered by a filing at a point in time with an outstanding creditor's restraining notice restraining debtor's funds still in the hands of a third-party. The restraining notice would remain in place but no further efforts at collection could be made.
City View's application (Doc 75) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.