In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.

20 Citing cases

  1. In re Residential Capital, LLC

    480 B.R. 529 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Adopting this standard but noting that debtors cannot be required "to provide discovery in a manner that threatens the [d]ebtors' ability to reorganize"

    The cases the parties have cited have largely concerned the application of section 105 to litigation or discovery requests made upon non-debtors (for example, employees of the debtor, officers or directors of the debtor, or non-debtor affiliates). See, e.g., Manville, 40 B.R. 219 (codefendant in other litigation sought document production and depositions from officers, directors, and employees of the debtor); Lane v. Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC (In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC), 423 B.R. 98, 100 (E.D.Pa.2010) (third party sought discovery against non-debtor co-defendants of the debtor); In re Richard B. Vance & Co., 289 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003) (third party issued subpoenas to the debtor's non-debtor parent company and its bank); In re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Patent Litig., 140 B.R. 969, 977 (N.D.Ill.1992) (third party sought depositions of debtor's employee); In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603, 605 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1991) (third party sought depositions of present or former employees of the debtor). In one case cited by the Debtors, the discovery being sought (customer lists and other document production) was directed against the debtor itself—however, unlike this case, the debtor had been named as a party in the pending litigation.

  2. In re Richard B. Vance Company

    No. 02-80457 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2003)   Cited 32 times
    Noting that although "there are valid arguments to the contrary, it is now generally accepted that discovery pertaining to claims against the bankrupts' codefendants is not stayed"

    A request for such an extension must be made by adversary proceeding. In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991). An adversary complaint has not been filed and the issue is not properly before the Court.

  3. Sawicki v. Tampa Hyde Park Cafe Props.

    8:22-cv-102-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla. Jul. 28, 2023)

    Courts in and around this district uniformly agree: “[t]he law makes clear . . . that the automatic stay provisions of section 362(a) generally are not available to third-party non- debtors.” In re Sunbeam Sec. Litig., 261 B.R. 534, 536 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (citing cases). See also In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp. et al., 130 B.R. 603, 606 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991) (“this Court is constrained to reject the proposition stated and the notion that the protection accorded by § 362 could be extended to non-debtors.”)

  4. Paulson v. Two Rivers Water & Farming Co.

    Civil Action No. 19-cv-02639-PAB-NYW (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    To extend the automatic stay to a non-debtor under this exception, the debtor must make such a request with the bankruptcy court. See In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991). ANALYSIS

  5. Pride Family Brands, Inc. v. Carls Patio, Inc.

    CASE NO. 12-21783-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Whether Mr. Otowhits currently works for Carl's Patio or another "new" associated entity does not alter the undersigned's analysis regarding whether his deposition should proceed under the facts of this case. In In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp. et al., 130 B.R. 603 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991), a court determined that a non-debtor co-defendant's request to take the depositions of several of the debtor's present and former employees in order to prepare the non-debtor defendant's defense in a civil action against the non-debtor did not violate a § 362 automatic stay. In reaching this conclusion, the Court stated ". . . it is clear that a literal reading of §362(a) leaves no doubt that the automatic stay would not prevent [the non-debtor co-defendant] from conducting the proposed discovery to be used for its defense in the suit. . ."

  6. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC

    423 B.R. 98 (E.D. Pa. 2010)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the impact of the proceeding on the debtors' estate and the debtors' indemnification practice established "related-to" jurisdiction

    Although no circuit courts have addressed the Miller rationale, a number of bankruptcy courts and district courts have applied it. See, e.g.,In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603, 605-06 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1991) (holding that the debtor was not protected from participating in discovery by section 362(a), but recognizing that " under appropriate circumstances it is proper to ‘ extend the automatic stay’ to protect the non-debtors against discovery proceedings" ); In re Richard B. Vance & Co., 289 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003) (noting that although " there are valid arguments to the contrary, it is now generally accepted that discovery pertaining to claims against the bankrupts' codefendants is not stayed" ); Peter Rosenbaum Photography Corp. v. Otto Doosan Mail Order Ltd., Civ. A. No. 04-0767, 2004 WL 2973822, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Nov.30, 2004) (relying on Miller and finding that discovery may proceed against a debtor provided that the discovery is directed towards the claims of non-debtor defendants).

  7. Lane v. Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC (In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC)

    BKY. NO. 09-11204, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-4065 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2010)

    Although no circuit courts have addressed the Miller rationale, a number of bankruptcy courts and district courts have applied it.See, e.g., In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603, 605-06 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991) (holding that the debtor was not protected from participating in discovery by section 362(a), but recognizing that "under appropriate circumstances it is proper to `extend the automatic stay' to protect the non-debtors against discovery proceedings"); In re Richard B. Vance Co., 289 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2003) (noting that although "there are valid arguments to the contrary, it is now generally accepted that discovery pertaining to claims against the bankrupts' codefendants is not stayed"); Peter Rosenbaum Photography Corp. v. Otto Doosan Mail Order Ltd., Civ. A. No. 04-0767, 2004 WL 2973822, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2004) (relying on Miller and finding that discovery may proceed against a debtor provided that the discovery is directed towards the claims of non-debtor defendants).

  8. Gregus v. Plan 4 College, Inc.

    Case No. 8:09-cv-01392-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. Sep. 18, 2009)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that because the complaint alleged facts that the defendants were either involved in the day-to-day operation or were directly responsible for the plaintiff's supervision, and considering the straightforward nature of an FLSA claim, the complaint provided fair notice to the defendants of the nature of the claim and the grounds on which it rested

    However, such an extension is not automatic and an order must be obtained through the affirmative request of the debtor in the bankruptcy court where the bankruptcy proceeding is pending. In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603, 606 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991); Brancato, 108 B.R. at 852; All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Milner, 79 B.R. 901, 903-04 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1987); Alvarez, 932 A.2d at 821-22. The bankruptcy court is in the best position, based upon its experience and expertise, to "assess the impact of litigation against a non-bankrupt co-defendant" and to decide whether the circumstances justify an extension of the automatic stay to such defendants.

  9. Hill v. Winter

    Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-2026-GET (N.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2006)

    Both cite law supporting the position that discovery may proceed against employees of the debtor. See In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603, 605 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991); In re Richard Vance and Co., 289 B.R. 692. Further, plaintiffs contend that many of the requests have already been produced in a related case before Judge Story.

  10. America Online, Inc. v. CN Productions, Inc.

    272 B.R. 879 (E.D. Va. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Finding if the purpose of the contempt is "to uphold the [c]ourt's dignity," the contempt is vindicatory in nature

    Worth noting is that the automatic stay, even if applicable here, would not operate to preclude AOL from obtaining information from Uhrig pursuant to the rules pertaining to discovery against non-parties. See In re Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 503 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (holding that a post-petition third-party subpoena to a debtor and the seeking of a sanction against that debtor for failure to comply with the subpoenas did not offend the automatic stay); In re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Patent Litigation, 140 B.R. 969, 976-77 (N.D.Ill. 1992) (holding that after a defendant filed for bankruptcy, the automatic stay did not bar discovery of its employees and former employees relating to claims against the other defendants); In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 130 B.R. 603, 605 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991) (holding that the automatic stay did not prevent discovery aimed at debtor as long as the discovery pertained to claims and defenses of a non-debtor party). Also worth noting is that AOL relies on these cases for a different purpose; it argues that they support the position that the automatic stay precludes only claims asserted by a debtor's creditors.