Monge v. DH Brewing Incorporated
2:24-cv-01294
D. Ariz.Mar 13, 2025Background
- Defendant Doajo Hicks filed for personal bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on December 5, 2024.
- Hicks requested the court stay all proceedings in this civil case until his bankruptcy is resolved.
- Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), filing for bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay on actions or proceedings against the debtor.
- Hicks is married; his spouse and several entities he allegedly owns (DH Brewing Inc., DH Enterprises Restaurants LLC, DH Enterprises Restaurants 2 LLC) are co-defendants.
- Arizona is a community property state, implicating Hicks’ estate in actions against his spouse or businesses.
- The court must decide whether the automatic bankruptcy stay extends to all co-defendants or just Hicks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Hicks’ Chapter 13 filing stay the action as to him? | Not disputed | Proceedings must be stayed | Stay applies to Hicks |
| Does the stay extend to Hicks’ spouse as co-defendant? | Not explicitly stated | Action against spouse affects estate | Stay extends to spouse under community property laws |
| Does the stay extend to business entities owned by Hicks? | Not explicitly stated | Suits against businesses threaten Hicks’ property interest | Stay extends to business entities |
| Is the entire litigation stayed pending bankruptcy plan? | Not explicitly stated | Yes, proceedings should halt | Entire case stayed until bankruptcy resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Blendheim, 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief)
- In re Powell, 119 F.4th 597 (9th Cir. 2024) (bankruptcy stay triggers on Chapter 13 filing)
- Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (automatic stay generally doesn’t cover non-debtors)
- In re Mantle, 153 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1998) (community property implications for bankruptcy estate)
- Matter of Lockard, 884 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1989) (stay extends to co-defendants where debtor's property interest is affected)
- Queenie Ltd. v. Nygard Int’l, 321 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2003) (stay can apply to debtor's wholly owned business where there’s immediate economic impact on debtor)