Opinion
No. 10-12592.
February 14, 2011
Memorandum on Motion for Relief From Automatic Stay
Only the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to make rulings regarding the automatic stay; state courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction in this area. In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000). State court decisions regarding the automatic stay are not given full faith and credit, nor are they afforded any sort of preclusive effect. Id. at 1082. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is not applicable to state court decisions regarding the automatic stay. Id. at 1083. In short, it is an utter waste of time to argue automatic stay issues to a state court. Still, pettifoggers do so with regularity, as a means of confusing and confounding state court proceedings.
This court has determined that the state court case entitled Underground Storage Systems, Inc. v. Napa Custom Crush, LLC, et al and related cross-action, Case No. 26-47717, now pending in Napa County Superior Court, should proceed as if no bankruptcy was involved for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the time which has been invested in the case by that court. The undersigned appreciates greatly the efforts of that court to resolve the complex issues involved in the case. There is no reason why the state court should be additionally burdened by bankruptcy issues. This court stands ready on a few days (or even a few hours) notice to resolve any bankruptcy issues anyone might wish to raise.
Accordingly, the court will enter an order making it clear that said state court case may proceed as if there were no bankruptcy pending and any and all matters relating to the automatic stay or other bankruptcy issues should be raised only to the bankruptcy court. The parties shall convey to the state court the appreciation of the undersigned for its efforts.
Counsel for Main Street Trust shall submit an appropriate form of order.
Dated: February 14, 2011