Windsor Terrace Healthcare, LLC
1:23-bk-11200
Bankr. C.D. Cal.Aug 20, 2024Background
- Debtors filed a Fourth Omnibus Motion to disallow or reclassify various creditors' claims in their Chapter 11 case.
- A stipulation between Debtors and McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. resolved the objection to McKesson’s claims; court order entered approving this.
- Court granted the motion to disallow or reclassify claims against several specific creditors, but continued a hearing on Recovery Nursing Agency’s disputed priority claim.
- Fabienne Ouapou-Lena’s claim, originally classified as priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4) and (a)(5), was challenged for not meeting statutory requirements.
- Court determined Ms. Ouapou-Lena’s employment ended more than 180 days before bankruptcy filing, rendering her claim nonpriority.
- Debtors must serve reclassified claimants with plan ballots so they may elect treatment under Class 4; amount of Ouapou-Lena’s claim to be revisited later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKesson’s claim was improperly classified | Debtors: Claim should be reclassified/disallowed | McKesson: Objection resolved via stipulation | Denied as moot due to stipulation |
| Priority status of Ms. Ouapou-Lena’s wage/benefit claims | Ouapou-Lena: Claims should be priority (timing/met criteria) | Debtors: Employment ended >180 days before bankruptcy; does not qualify | Claims reclassified as unsecured nonpriority |
| Whether continued hearing is necessary for Recovery Nursing Agency’s disputed priority claim | Debtors: Disallow/reclassify claim immediately | Recovery Nursing: Dispute priority status | Hearing continued to later date |
| Challenge to amount of Ms. Ouapou-Lena’s claim | Debtors raise additional issues on amount | Ouapou-Lena not given opportunity to respond yet | Court reserves ruling on amount challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundell v. Anchor Const. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2000) (establishes burden-shifting framework for evaluating objections to proofs of claim)
- In re Laptops Etc. Corp., 164 B.R. 506 (Bankr. D. Md. 1993) (clarifies claimant’s burden of persuasion after objection supported by probative evidence)
