1

2 FILED & ENTERED

3

APR 16 2024

4

5 CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT Central District of California 6 BY s u m l i n DEPUTY CLERK

7 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 11 12 In re: Case No.: 2:24-bk-11389-NB 13 Sandra C. Estrada, Chapter: 13

14

MEMORANDUM DECISION

15 DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

BASED UPON ATTORNEY AARON

16 Debtor. BERGER’S VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT

NOT TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR ANY

17

PARTY IN ANY BANKRUPTCY CASE

18 PENDING IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA FOR A PERIOD OF ONE

19 YEAR

20 Hearing: Date: April 9, 2024 21 Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 1545 22 255 E. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 23 (or via ZoomGov per posted procedures) 24 On March 13, 2024, this Court issued an order requiring Debtor’s counsel, Aaron 25 Berger, to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for facilitating 26 Debtor’s abuse of the bankruptcy process (dkt. 14, the “OSC”). A hearing on the OSC 27 took place as set forth in the caption above. Based upon Mr. Berger’s declaration 28 explaining the circumstances (dkt. 20) and his voluntary agreement not to appear as 1 counsel for any party in any bankruptcy case pending in the Central District of California 2 for a period of one year absent authorization from this Court, a separate order 3 discharging the OSC will be issued. 4 1. BACKGROUND 5 Debtor, who was represented by Mr. Berger with respect to all matters pertaining 6 to this short-lived bankruptcy case, filed a chapter 13 petition on February 26, 2024. On 7 March 1, 2024, this Court issued an “Order Directing Debtor to Appear and Show Cause 8 Why Her Chapter 13 Case Should Not be Transferred to the Southern District of 9 California” (dkt. 3, the “Venue OSC”). As explained in the Venue OSC, the residential 10 address listed in the petition is located within the Southern District of California, not the 11 Central District of California (the district in which the case was filed). See Venue OSC 12 at p. 2. The Venue OSC set a deadline of March 8, 2024 for Debtor to file a written 13 response explaining why the Central District of California was the proper venue. 14 Debtor did not respond to the Venue OSC. Instead, on March 6, 2024, Debtor 15 filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case (dkt. 10, the “Dismissal Motion”). The 16 Dismissal Motion stated that Debtor “no longer seeks federal bankruptcy protection at 17 this time,” id. at p. 1, but did not explain why or how Debtor’s circumstances had 18 changed, such that bankruptcy protection was necessary on February 26, 2024 but no 19 longer necessary approximately two weeks later. 20 On March 13, 2024, this Court dismissed the case, based upon Debtor’s 21 absolute right to dismissal,1 but retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by 22 the OSC. Dkt. 14. As explained in the OSC: 23 Although this Court is required to honor Debtor’s request for dismissal, it still retains jurisdiction to determine whether Mr. Berger caused the 24 petition to be filed on Debtor’s behalf to accomplish objectives other than 25 those contemplated by the Bankruptcy Code. Such an abuse of the bankruptcy process could include, for example, filing the petition merely to 26 delay Debtor’s creditors even though Debtor had no intent to reorganize.

27 1 See 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b); see also In re Nichols, 10 F.4th 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that “§ 1307(b)’s text confers upon the debtor an absolute right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, 28 subject to the single exception noted expressly in the statute itself,” regardless of any determination that the debtor abused the bankruptcy process). It appears that by filing this case, Mr. Berger may have been facilitating an 1 abuse of the bankruptcy process: (1) the petition was a “face sheet” filing 2 not accompanied by any schedules; (2) the petition was filed in the Central District of California, even though Debtor’s residential address (as listed 3 on the petition) is located within the Southern District of California, which suggests that Mr. Berger may have lacked a good-faith basis for 4 determining that the Central District of California was the proper venue for this case (see the Venue OSC for a more detailed discussion); and (3) 5 Debtor requested voluntary dismissal of the case only nine days after filing 6 the petition, with no explanation as to the change in circumstances. [OSC at pp. 2–3 (footnote omitted).] 7 2. DISCUSSION 8 Mr. Berger’s declaration (dkt. 20) in response to the OSC explains his attempts, 9 under a tight time schedule, to assist Debtor, while recognizing his lack of expertise in 10 the field of bankruptcy and the fact that he did not file the bankruptcy petition in the 11 correct district. His declaration also states the following: 12 As of right now, I have no intention of ever representing a client in a 13 bankruptcy case again. I am very sorry and embarrassed for the inconvenience I have unintentionally caused the court, trustee, creditors, 14 and any other parties involved in this case. I swear it will never happen again. [Berger Decl. (dkt. 20) at ¶¶ 32–34.] 15 Prior to the hearing on the OSC, this Court posted a tentative ruling, which stated 16 in relevant part: 17 18 This Court interprets [the foregoing statement of Mr. Berger] as a voluntary agreement not to appear as counsel for any party in any 19 bankruptcy case pending in the Central District of California for an indefinite period of time, and potentially on a permanent basis. The 20 tentative ruling is that it is appropriate to bar Mr. Berger from appearing as counsel for any party in any bankruptcy case in this district for a period of 21 one year from this hearing date, absent further order of this Court lifting 22 this bar. To be clear, Mr. Berger offers plausible explanations, and appears to exhibit appropriate remorse, and to avoid the time and 23 expense of an evidentiary hearing it appears appropriate to accept Mr. Berger's apparent offer rather than attempt to determine precisely whether 24 a lesser or greater sanction is appropriate. To the extent this Court has misinterpreted Mr. Berger’s statement, 25 he is directed to appear to contest this tentative ruling. Provided that Mr. 26 Berger is prepared to voluntarily agree not to represent clients in bankruptcy cases filed in this district for a period of one year as set forth 27 above, this Court is prepared to discharge the OSC. [Tentative Ruling for OSC Hearing at pp. 84–85.] 28 1 Mr. Berger appeared at the hearing on the OSC and elected not to contest the 2 || tentative ruling. Therefore, based upon Mr. Berger’s voluntary agreement not to 3 || represent clients in bankruptcy cases filed in this district for a period of one year from 4 || the above-captioned hearing date, absent further order of this Court lifting this bar, a 5 || separate order discharging the OSC will be issued. 6 Hit 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 ka 24 Date: April 16, 2024 Neato. Stee 25 United States Bankruptcy Judge 26 27 28

-4-

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I, the below-named deputy clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court, certify that I placed a true and 3 correct copy of the attached document in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing, no later than the next business day that is not a court-observed holiday, in the United States mail, first class, postage 4 prepaid, and addressed as follows:

5 Debtor’s Counsel Aaron Berger 6 4338 1/2 Laurel Canyon Blvd Studio City, CA 91604 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Service information continued on attached page 26 Date: 4/16/2024 Signature: /s/ Sharon Sumlin Deputy Clerk [printed name]: Sharon Sumlin 27 28