In re Iezzi, 504 B.R. 777

Debtor filed Chapter 13 during ongoing state court dispute over a city recycling fee.
City seeks to enforce recycling fees via a scire facias proceeding; Debtor challenges authority to levy the fee.
Commonwealth Court held recycling fee preempted, reversing the trial court; City moves for stay relief and to void the Commonwealth Court decision after bankruptcy filed.
Bankruptcy court stayed Commonwealth Court appeal to the automatic stay; City offered to waive prepetition fees and reimburse payments if litigation mooted.
Court concludes the dispute is moot due to City Waiver Offer and grants City’s stay-enforcement motion while denying the Debtor’s stay-relief motion, subject to conditions.
Conclusion: City’s motion granted; Debtor’s motion denied with conditions to implement the waiver offer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §362(a) stays the state scire facias dispute.	City argues the stay applies since the scire facias action predated the bankruptcy.	Iezzi contends §362(b)(4) exempts certain police/power actions from stay.	Yes, the stay applies to the scire facias dispute; §362(b)(4) does not apply.
Whether §362(b)(4) exception applies to the recycling-fee collection.	City asserts the action enforces police powers and is exempt.	Debtor argues the action is pecuniary, not regulatory, thus not exempt.	No, the scire facias proceeding is pecuniary, not exempted by §362(b)(4).
Whether relief from the automatic stay should be granted given mootness from the City Waiver Offer.	Debtor seeks relief to continue appellate litigation.	City’s waiver moots the dispute; relief would be unnecessary.	Relief denied; mootness due to City Waiver Offer supports keeping stay in place.
Whether Dragonetti claim remains viable if litigation is mooted.	Debtor could pursue Dragonetti claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings.	Waiver and mootness foreclose live dispute.	Dragonetti claim moot and not necessary to resolve; relief limited by waiver.

Nortel Networks, Inc. v. City of Bell Atlantic, 669 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2011) (police/power exception tests; pecuniary vs regulatory purposes)
In re University Med. Ctr., 973 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1992) (police power exception applies when public health/safety goals are at issue)
In re Myers, 491 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2007) (general stay principles in Third Circuit)
In re Siciliano, 13 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 1994) (automatic stay and health/safety considerations)
Raymark Indus., Inc. v. Lai, 973 F.2d 1125 (3d Cir. 1992) (stay implications in prepetition actions)
Association of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F.2d 446 (3d Cir. 1982) (stay applies to appeals conducted post-petition)
Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union 107, 98 B.R. 698 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (mootness/factoring of ongoing state court disputes in stay relief)
Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) (state mootness considerations and standing)
In re Nejberger, 120 B.R. 21 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (modest impact of stay violation remittal; not controlling)
Solis v. Makozy, 2012 WL 1458232 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (federal agency action under stay considerations)