65 Cal.App.5th 153
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2007 judgment creditors (Jason Rubin and Cira Ross, as cotrustees) obtained a money judgment against David Ross; the judgment was amended in 2008.
- David Ross filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on January 13, 2009; the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 then applied.
- The Bankruptcy Court granted limited relief from the stay in March 2019 allowing creditors to seek renewal of the judgment; the debtor’s discharge was denied and the order was noticed April 1, 2019.
- Creditors filed an application to renew the judgment in superior court on April 11, 2019 (within 30 days after stay-related events); notice of renewal was issued that day.
- Debtor moved to vacate the renewal as untimely under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 683.130 (10-year rule); the trial court denied the motion, relying on 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) to extend the renewal deadline.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: renewal is not barred by the automatic stay and § 108(c) extends the time to renew until 30 days after stay termination/expiration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Creditors) | Defendant's Argument (Ross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bankruptcy automatic stay (§ 362) prevents filing a statutory renewal of a California judgment (CCP §§ 683.120–683.130/§ 683.210) | Renewal is a ministerial act permitted by CCP § 683.210 and thus not precluded by the stay | Filing renewal is a continuation of an action against the debtor and thus barred by § 362 | Renewal filing itself is not prohibited by § 362; it is a ministerial act and enforcement remains stayed |
| Whether § 108(c) extends the time to seek renewal of a judgment until 30 days after the stay ends | § 108(c) applies and grants a 30‑day extension to file renewal even if renewal was not blocked by the stay | § 108(c) should not apply because creditors were not prevented from renewing during the stay | § 108(c) applies; it extends the renewal period to 30 days after stay termination/expiration, and creditors filed within that period |
| Whether § 362 preempts California’s renewal scheme (conflict/obstacle preemption) | No preemption; state renewal statute does not conflict because renewal is ministerial and enforcement still stayed | Preemption (argued via lower federal decisions): renewal constitutes a proceeding against debtor and conflicts with § 362 | No preemption: statutes harmonize—renewal does not create new liability or allow enforcement; enforcement actions remain barred by § 362 |
Key Cases Cited
- Kertesz v. Ostrovsky, 115 Cal.App.4th 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (describes statutory renewal procedure and 10‑year enforcement period)
- Goldman v. Simpson, 160 Cal.App.4th 255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (characterizes renewal as a ministerial entry that does not create a new judgment)
- Fid. Creditor Serv. v. Browne, 89 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for vacating renewal and appellate review standard)
- In re Spirtos, 221 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2000) (Ninth Circuit reasoning that § 108(c) can extend time to act post‑stay)
- In re Swintek, 906 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing renewal from enforcement; discussion of renewal/enforcement timing)
- In re Lobherr, 282 B.R. 912 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2002) (bankruptcy court reached contrary view that § 362 bars renewal; appellate court here disagreed)
- PG&E Co. v. Cal. ex rel. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, 350 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption against federal preemption in bankruptcy contexts)