1

2

FILED & ENTERED

3

4 AUG 29 2025

5

CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT

6 C B e Y n e t v r a a l n D g i e s l t i r i c D t E o P f U C T a Y li f C or L n E ia RK 7

8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LOS ANGELES DIVISION

11

12

13 In re: Case No.: 2:25-bk-14466-BB

14 Gregory Langadinos CHAPTER 7

15 ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR

STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER

16

DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTIONS [DOCKET

17 NOS. 44, 45 AND 26] Debtor(s). 18 (No hearing required)

19

20 The Court, having reviewed and considered debtor Gregory Langadinos’ motion 21 for a stay pending appeal of this Court’s August 18, 2025 “Order Denying Debtor’s 22 Motions [Docket Nos. 44, 45 and 46] for Relief from Prior Orders of this Court and 23 Reimposition of the Automatic Stay” [Docket No. 48] (the “August 18 Order”), the record 24 in the above chapter 7 case (the “Case”) and applicable law, hereby finds and orders as 25 follows: 26

27

28 1 As the Court explained in its August 18, Order, the debtor, Gregory Langadinos 2 (the “Debtor”), has engaged in an extended attempt to forestall through any means 3 necessary his eviction from the apartment that he currently occupies for which he has 4 not paid rent since September of 2024. [See Motion for Relief from Stay, Docket No. 5 15, at p. 7, par. 6.] After his landlord commenced an unlawful detainer action in the Los 6 Angeles Superior Court, Inglewood Division (the “UD Action”), the Debtor removed the 7 UD Action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the 8 “District Court”) on March 3, 2025 [see District Court case no. 2:25cv1810], and the 9 District Court promptly remanded the matter to state court by order entered March 6, 10 2025 [Docket No. 12 in that action]. The Debtor then filed a lawsuit in District Court 11 against the Inglewood Superior Court and the Commissioner to which the UD Action 12 was assigned on May 27, 2025 [District Court case no. 2:25cv4746] and moved for a 13 temporary restraining order to forestall his eviction. The District Court denied that 14 motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and based on judicial immunity on May 28, 15 2025 [Docket No. 9 in that action]. Later the same day, the Debtor filed the above 16 chapter 7 Case to obtain the benefit of the automatic stay, as he had been unable to 17 obtain injunctive relief otherwise. 18 The Debtor’s landlord (the “Landlord”) filed a motion for relief from the automatic 19 stay on July 7, 2025 [Docket No. 15]. This Court denied the Debtor’s motion for a 20 continuance of the hearing on that motion and entered an order granting the Landlord 21 relief from stay on July 29, 2025 [Docket No. 28]. 22 Since that time, the Debtor has filed a series of motions that this Court has 23 denied and motions for reconsideration of those denials and has complained to a variety 24 of parties concerning this Court, arguing, among other things, that he is entitled to 25 remain in his apartment for an extended period without payment of rent as an 26 accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the undersigned 27 should be disqualified because she holds a bias against unrepresented parties who 28 1 have New York accents.1 However, at no time has the Debtor set forth any viable legal 2 theory to support his contention that relief from stay was improvidently granted or that 3 any of the orders denying his motions for reconsideration should be reversed on 4 appeal.2 5 When deciding whether to issue a stay pending a bankruptcy appeal, courts 6 weigh the following four factors: (1) whether movant is likely to succeed on the merits of 7 the appeal; (2) whether significant and/or irreparable harm would come to the movant 8 absent a stay; (3) whether a stay would cause harm to the adverse party; and (4) where 9 the public interest lies. Hilton v.Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Dynamic Fin. 10 Corp. v. Kipperman (In re N. Plaza, LLC), 395 B.R. 113, 119 (S.D. Ca. 2008). None of 11 these factors weighs in favor of granting a stay pending appeal in the instant case. 12 The Debtor has failed to demonstrate any likelihood of success on the merits. 13 The Debtor has not provided any evidence or argument to support his contention that 14 any prior orders of this Court that may be the subject of his appeal were entered in 15 error. As the Court explained in its August 18 Order, there was “cause” to grant the 16 motion for relief from stay within the meaning of section 362(d)(1) because the Landlord 17 wants to move forward with her efforts to evict the Debtor from his apartment. The 18 Debtor may believe he has valid defenses to prevent that eviction. Therefore, the 19 parties need to resolve these disputes, and the state court before whom the UD Action 20 is pending is the ONLY place for the parties to do that. The bankruptcy court does not 21 1 Although the accusation that Judge Bluebond hates pro se litigants with New York accents appears in a point 22 heading in one of the Debtor’s motions, the text of that motion does not contain any further discussion as to why the Debtor believes this rather specific and peculiar bias to be the case. (And, just to be clear: (A) the undersigned does 23 not hate pro se debtors – even if they have New York accents; (B) the Court did not happen to notice on the one occasion on which the Debtor appeared before her whether the Debtor actually has a New York accent; and (C) the 24 Debtor has not at any time in any of his papers claimed to have such an accent.) 2 This appears to be the Debtor’s modus operandi. The Court notes for the record that the Debtor has already been 25 (a) found to be a “vexatious litigant” and prohibited from filing litigation in the courts of California unless represented by an attorney; (b) enjoined by the Suffolk County Superior Court for the State of Massachusetts from 26 filing any action at law or in equity in any Massachusetts state court of original jurisdiction without first complying 27 with the procedures outlined in Langadinos v. Southern New England School of Law, Inc., 30 Mass.L.Rptr. 278 (2012); and (c) enjoined from filing any new claims, cases, complaints or other documents in the U.S. District Court 28 for the District of Massachusetts without first obtaining written approval from a judge of that court by filing a written petition seeking leave of court to do so in Langadinos v. Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts, 2013 WL 5513766 (D. Mass. 2013). 1 adjudicate the merits of unlawful detainer actions, particularly in a no asset case such 2 as this where the outcome of that dispute will not have no impact whatsoever on the 3 size of distributions to creditors. 4 Either there is a valid judgment in the UD Action or there is not.3 If there is not, 5 the parties need to return to state court to litigate the UD Action to conclusion. If there is 6 a valid judgment, the Landlord should be given relief from stay to enforce that judgment. 7 If that judgment was improvidently entered, the Debtor must seek a remedy in state 8 court. As this Court has repeatedly explained to the Debtor, this Court cannot act as a 9 Court of Appeal in which to challenge a state court judgment. Moreover, this is not an 10 instance in which the Court is being asked to give collateral estoppel effect to any ruling 11 made by the state court. The Bankruptcy Court is merely lifting the automatic stay for 12 the parties to exercise their rights and remedies as against one another – whatever they 13 may be – in state court. 14 The Debtor has also failed to show irreparable harm. The Debtor has had, or will 15 have, ample opportunity to raise any defenses he may have to an eviction in the UD 16 Action. Moreover, granting a stay pending appeal here would cause substantial harm to 17 the Landlord, who has already been unable to regain possession of the property for an 18 extended period due to the Debtor’s repeated attempts to get another “bite at the apple” 19 in federal court. The public interest also weighs against granting a stay, as the public 20 interest is not advanced when a litigant is permitted to continue inflicting harm on others 21 by abusing the judicial process. Therefore, the Debtor has failed to demonstrate that he 22 should be granted a stay pending appeal in this matter. 23 24 25 26 27 3 The undersigned generally uses CourtLink (a Lexis product) to view dockets of actions pending in state courts. 28 However, a search under the case number for the UD Action turned up no results, and a search under the names of the Debtor and the Landlord turned up only the actions the Debtor brought in the District Court referenced above. Perhaps the relevant docket has been sealed? 1 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Debtor’s motion for a stay pending appeal is 3 || DENIED. 4 HHH 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 > 7 CZ 25 Date: August 29, 2025 haa bs Al 26 United States Bankruptey Judge 27 28