1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 POSTED TO THE WEBSITE

3

4

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 In re: Case No. 25-20483-A-7 8

BARRIE WILLIAM GEORGE EVES, KA-7

9 Memorandum Amending Findings of 10 Debtor. Fact and Conclusions of Law 11 12

13

14

15 16 Argued and submitted on December 15, 2025 17 at Sacramento, California 18 Honorable Fredrick E. Clement, Bankruptcy Judge Presiding 19

20 Attorney Kimberly Ahrens for Creditors Maurice Giron, 21 Appearances: Ahrens Law, APC, and Kimberly Ahrens; Attorney James A. Shepherd for the Debtor 22

23 24 25 26 27 1 Section 362(d)(1) allows this court to modify the stay to allow 2 state court litigation to liquidate a debt. Creditor prevailed 3 against the debtor in state court but has not ruled on an attorneys’ 4 fees motion. Debtor filed Chapter 7, which is a “no asset” case. 5 Creditor sections 523, 727 actions. The debt will only be relevant if 6 the plaintiff prevails in the adversary proceeding but requires 7 continued state court litigation. Should the court grant stay relief? 8 I. FACTS 9 Prior to bankruptcy, Barrie George Eves (“Eves”) was a one of 10 several defendants in a state court employment law action. The 11 plaintiff was Maurice Giron (“Giron”); his attorney was Kimberly 12 Ahrens (“Ahrens”). At trial, plaintiff Giron prevailed and was 13 awarded damages of $1.4 million. Apparently, applicable non- 14 bankruptcy law authorizes the prevailing plaintiff in such an action 15 to seek costs and attorney’s fees. 16 Before Giron sought those fees, Eves filed a Chapter 7 17 bankruptcy. Irma Edmonds was appointed and remains the Chapter 7 18 trustee. Trustee Edmonds has filed a report of no distribution. 19 Giron has filed a claim for $1.4 million; Ahrens has filed a claim for 20 attorney’s fees in an “unknown,” amount. 21 Giron and Ahrens filed a post-trial motion for attorney’s fees 22 and costs against all defendants except Eves. Ahrens decl. 3:2-3, ECF 23 No. 48. Thereafter, “the State Court ordered Plaintiff’s, herein 24 Creditors, to obtain an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court 25 lifting the stay for Debtor Eves to enable the State court to rule on 26 the motion for fees and costs and continued the post-trial motion for 27 fees.” Id. at 3:5-8. 1 proceeding to deny Eves his discharge and to except the debt from 2 discharge. 11 U.S.C. §§ 523, 727. Notwithstanding the passage of 3 almost nine months and several amendments to the complaint, the 4 adversary proceeding is in the pleadings stage. 5 II. PROCEDURE 6 Thereafter, Giron and Ahrens moved this court for relief from the 7 stay to allow the state court to rule on the motion for attorney’s 8 fees and costs. Eves opposed the motion. The court denied the motion 9 believing that the question was better handled by way of the claims 10 process. Civ. Minutes, ECF No. 51. Giron and Ahrens have appealed 11 the ruling and, in light of that appeal, this court avails itself of 12 the option to augmenting its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 13 III. JURISDICTION 14 This court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a)-(b), 157(b); 15 see also General Order No. 182 of the Eastern District of California. 16 Jurisdiction is core. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(a)-(O); In re Bellucci, 17 119 B.R. 763, 773 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1990). 18 IV. DISCUSSION 19 The Bankruptcy Court may lift or modify the stay for cause. 11 20 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Excepting a lack of adequate protection, cause” 21 is not a defined term. “Cause” has no clear definition and is 22 determined on a case-by-case basis.” In re Universal Life Church, 23 Inc., 127 B.R. 453, 455 (E.D. Cal. 1991), aff'd sub nom. Universal 24 Life Church, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1992). The 25 bankruptcy court is given wide discretion on the question. In re 26 Arnold, 806 F.2d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 While it is true that litigation in a non-bankruptcy forum may In re Tucson Estates, Inc 1 (9th Cir. 1990), the existence of litigation in a non-bankruptcy forum 2 is not cause per se. Many courts apply the Sonnax Industries factors: 3 [1] Whether the relief will result in a complete or only a partial resolution of the issues; [2] The degree of 4 connection or interference with the bankruptcy case; [3] Whether the case involves the debtor as a fiduciary; [4] 5 Whether the case is before a specialized tribunal with necessary expertise to determine the issues; [5] Whether 6 the debtor's defense and potential liability is covered by insurance; [6] Whether the action involves primarily third 7 parties; [7] Whether the case would prejudice other creditors' interests; [8] Whether a resulting judgment 8 would be subject to equitable subordination (11 USC § 510(c); [9] Whether a resulting judgment would result in a 9 judicial lien avoidable by the debtor (11 USC § 522(f), see ¶ 21:1390 ff.); [10] The interests of judicial economy 10 and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; [11] Whether the parties are ready for trial; 11 and [12] The impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms. 12 March, Ahart & Shapiro, California Practice Guide: Bankruptcy § 8:1165 13 (Rutter Group December 2025), citing In re Sonnax Indus., Inc. (2nd 14 Cir. 1990) 907 F.2d 1280, 1286; In re Hakim, 212 B.R. 632, 639-640 15 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1997). 16 As the court noted in Sonnax, not all of the factors apply in 17 every case and the court need not give equal weight in making its 18 decision. In re Plumberex Specialty Prods., Inc., 311 B.R. 551, 560 19 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004); In re Smith, 389 B.R. 902, 919 (Bankr. D. 20 Nev. 2008). 21 Two points seem relevant. First, the movant can still obtain 22 state court relief, i.e., ruling on the attorney’s fees motion, as to 23 the other defendants. That is true because the stay does not protect 24 third parties. In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc., 23 F.3d 241, 246 25 (9th Cir. 1994) (stay does not protect third parties); United States 26 v. Dos Cabezas Corp., 995 F.2d 1486, 1491-1492 (9th Cir. 1993). It 27 appears that some, or all, of the players in the state court action 1 believe the contrary. 2 Second, as to the real player before this court, Giron and Eves, 3 this court believes that the Sonnax Indus. factors weigh in favor of 4 denial of the motion. At best, the state court’s ruling will afford 5 only partial relief. The Chapter 7 case is a no asset case, which 6 means liquidation of the claim is unnecessary for purposes of 7 distribution. Certainly, liquidation would resolve a part, probably a 8 very small part, of the discharge and denial of discharge proceedings. 9 Based on this court’s involvement with the adversary proceeding, this 10 court is not yet convinced that this is a likely outcome. 11 Likewise, the degree of connection or interference, the case is 12 less than strong, again because it will impact only the adversary 13 proceeding. 14 Moreover, there is no evidence that the debtor has insurance that 15 will pay to defend the motion. This court does not believe that 16 compelling the debtor to expend precious resources defending the 17 motion on the chance that the plaintiff will prevail in the adversary 18 (which could make liquidation of the debt significant). 19 While the movant argues that judicial economy is served by 20 granting the motion, this court finds to the contrary. The question 21 of the attorney’s fees and costs for which Eves is liable can easily 22 be determined by this court. 23 Finally, the court balances the harms. The debtor may be 24 significantly harmed financially by being forced to defend further in 25 state court; in contrast, the creditor will not be harmed by forcing 26 him to liquidate his debt in the non-dischargeability action. March, 27 Ahert & Shapiro, California Practice Guide: Bankruptcy § 8:1176 1 relates to a claim against the debtor that is dischargeable in 2 bankruptcy, relief from stay may be denied. Reason: Such claims 3 usually can be handled more economically within the bankruptcy case). 4 Vv. CONCLUSION 5 For each of these reasons, the motion will be denied. The court 6 will issue an amended order from chambers. | Dated: December 18, 2025

MSS CLF-

° Fredrick Clement 10 United States Bankruptcy Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Instructions to Clerk of Court

2 Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment

3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the document 4 via the BNC or, if checked ____, via the U.S. mail.

5

6 Debtor(s) Attorney for the Debtor(s) (if any)

7 Bankruptcy Trustee (if appointed in the case) Office of the U.S. Trustee Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse 8 501 I Street, Room 7-500 9 Sacramento, CA 95814 Kimberly Ahrens 10 Ahrens Law, APC 2173 Salk Ave, Ste 250 11 Carlsbad, CA 92008 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27