In re: Pacific Thomas Corporation, NC-16-1255-BJuF

Pacific Thomas Corp. filed Chapter 11; Randall C.M. Whitney (president) was removed as debtor-in-possession when a Chapter 11 trustee (Kyle Everett) was appointed for alleged mismanagement.
Trustee marketed and sold the Self-Storage Facility, sought Certificates of Compliance from City of Oakland, and abandoned Commercial Buildings; sale to Comcore closed after court approved sale free and clear under § 363(m).
Whitney filed a state-court writ of administrative mandamus (October 22, 2014) challenging Certificates and recorded four lis pendens against estate property while purporting to act as "debtor representative," though he had no authority since trustee appointment.
Trustee moved for contempt, arguing Whitney violated the automatic stay (§ 362(a)(3)) by recording lis pendens; bankruptcy court found a willful stay violation, declared the lis pendens void, ordered expungement, and awarded $30,000 in fees.
Whitney later moved for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) to continue the Mandamus Action; the bankruptcy court denied the motion, concluding only the trustee had standing to pursue claims on behalf of the estate and Whitney could not pursue the estate’s action.
The BAP affirmed, holding Whitney lacked authority to prosecute the Mandamus Action on behalf of the estate and denying stay relief was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Whitney may obtain relief from the automatic stay to continue the mandamus action filed in the name of the debtor	Whitney argued the mandamus would benefit the estate and he had standing as an "equity stakeholder" and former debtor representative; he also asserted (later) individual interests in adjacent property	Trustee argued only the trustee, as estate representative, has the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate; Whitney lacked authority and had previously violated the stay by recording lis pendens	Denied: only the trustee may prosecute estate claims; Whitney could not continue the estate’s mandamus action and any personal claims must be pursued separately without stay relief

Spirtos v. One San Bernardino Cty. Super. Ct., 443 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.) (trustee is exclusive representative of the estate with standing to sue on its behalf)
Gruntz v. City of L.A., 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for stay-relief decisions referenced)
TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (appellate court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record)
Kronemyer v. Am. Contractors Indem. Co. (In re Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915 (9th Cir. BAP) (stay-relief decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)