502 B.R. 881
Bankr. N.D. Ga.2013Background
- The Hindu Temple bankruptcy case (Chapter 11) involves trustee Whitaker and his professionals.
- In 2012–2013, the Trustee pursued judgments against Annamalai and related entities for fraudulent transfers.
- Annamalai filed the Ohio Federal Action on July 29, 2013 naming the Trustee’s attorney Kozar and spouses as defendants.
- The Ohio action sought $125 million and aimed to harass the Trustee and his professionals.
- The Court had previously concluded in 2012 that Barton doctrine applies to protect the Trustee and professionals from related suits.
- The Court held an expedited hearing on the Contempt Motion on August 20, 2013; Annamalai did not appear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Ohio action violate the Barton doctrine? | Annamalai contends Barton does not apply to the Ohio action. | Barton extends to protect trustees and professionals from related suits; action threatens estate administration. | Yes; Barton doctrine violated; contempt warranted. |
| Are Kozar and the Spouse Defendants proper targets of contempt? | Claims named Kozar/spouses to harass Trustee, not legitimate claims against them. | No proper claims against Kozar/spouses; misused to hinder Trustee. | Yes; targets used to intimidate Trustee/teams; contempt found. |
| Are sanctions and fees appropriate for contempt? | Contempt sanctions and attorney’s fees justified to deter abuse. | Ask court to limit sanctions; need to show culpable conduct. | Sanctions affirmed: $1,000/day plus $5,000 fees. |
| Did Annamalai act with intent to disrupt the bankruptcy estate? | Actions intended to derail Building Litigation and collection efforts. | Claims lacked real basis; not proven to disrupt estate. | Court found purposeful harassment to impede estate activities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Rodgers, 220 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizes Barton doctrine as applicable to bankruptcy trustees)
- Miller v. Kemira, Inc. (In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc.), 910 F.2d 784 (11th Cir. 1990) (defines related-to bankruptcy test for proceedings)
- Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1881) (establishes leave of court before suing a receiver/trustee)
- Linton, 136 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1998) (notes threat to perform duties; rationale for Barton protection)