Opinion
CASE NO.: CV 14-01354 SJO (PJWx)
03-19-2014
Won Park v. National City Bank of Indiana, et al.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Victor Paul Cruz
Courtroom Clerk Not Present
Court Reporter
COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present
COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
Not Present PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION SUA SPONTE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff Won Park ("Plaintiff") brought this action in propria persona against Defendants National City Bank of Indiana and Cal-Western Reconveyance (collectively, "Defendants"). (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he filed for bankruptcy on November 8, 2013, at which time he was the owner of the property located at 1311 Bloomwood Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California (the "Property"). (Compl.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants sold the Property at a trustee's sale on November 12, 2013, in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Bankruptcy Code's automatic-stay provision. (Compl.) The Court finds it necessary to consider the issue of its jurisdiction sua sponte. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action."). Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over this action because his ground for seeking relief is a violation of federal law. (Compl.) What Plaintiff leaves out of the Complaint, however, is that the Bankruptcy Court granted Defendants' motion for relief from the automatic stay on December 12, 2013. In re Won Park, No. BK 13-37030 SK (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013) (order granting motion for relief from the automatic stay). The Bankruptcy Court made the order retroactive to November 8, 2013, because it found that "[t]he filing of [Plaintiff's] petition was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, and 2 defraud creditors." In re Won Park, No. BK 13-37030 SK (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013) (amended order granting motion for relief from the automatic stay). Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Plaintiff's case on December 11 and finally closed the matter on December 30, 2013, because Plaintiff failed to file all the required documents. In re Won Park, No. BK 13-37030 SK (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) (order and notice of dismissal for failure to file schedules, statements, and/or plan). "A Federal District Court does not have original jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters." Radke v. Holbrook, No. CV 09-01355 GAF, 2010 WL 9010982, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2010) (citations omitted). The Court does, however, have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders of the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). "[A] grant or denial of a motion for relief from an automatic stay is considered a final order." In re Cimarron Investors, 848 F.2d 974, 975 (9th Cir. 1988). As such, Plaintiff should have appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order granting Defendants relief from the automatic stay. Plaintiff had 14 days from the entry of the Bankruptcy Court's order to appeal, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), but declined to avail himself of this remedy. Instead, Plaintiff seeks a contradictory ruling from this Court without informing it of the prior order in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, either as an original action or as a belated de facto appeal couched as one. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This matter shall close. IT IS SO ORDERED.