Case Information
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ENTERED 10/31/2017 H O U STON D IV ISION
m M
M ATTHEW JOHN DATE, CASE NO. 15-31568-145-7
Debtor,
R SL FUN DW G, LLC,
Plaintiff,
A D V . N O . 15-3185 M ATTHEW JOH N D A TE,
Defendant. ORDER DENYING M OTID N FOR RECON SIDEM TION AND A W ARDW G SANCTIONS
Before the Court are the ''M otion for an Order Finding Stewart A. Feldm an in Civil Contempt'' (Docket No. 69) and the ''Plaintiffs M otion for Reconsideration, for a New Trial or to Alter or Amend a Judgment'' (Docket No. 71). The Court entered its M emorandum Opinion dism issing this adversmy proceeding because the Plaintiff com menced it in violation of an injunction prohibiting the filing of adversmy proceedings by Stewart Feldman or entities he owned. The Plaintiff seeks reconsideration, citing essentially the same grounds it asserted in response to Defendant's motion to dism iss. Defendant seeks a finding of contempt and sanctions against Feldman for filing the adversary proceeding in violation of the injunction. Defendant's m otion includes a request for ''such other and further relief, at 1aw or in equity to which he m ay P:ïdate-20171031.wpd
be justly entitled.'' The Court denies Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration, and awards Defendant's attorney fees as a sanction against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff s M otion for Reconsiderafion Lacks M erit As set forth in greater detail in this Court's ''M emorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing Adversary Proceeding'' (Docket No. 68), during 1996 the Court pennanently enjoined Stewart A. Feldman and his entities from filing adversary proceedings in bankruptcy cases without permission of the Court based on Feldman's bad faith vexatious litigation tactics in the M BM and M atz cases.l RSL Funding, LLC tan entity Feldman owns) filed this adversary proceeding in violation of the injunction. Defendant orally moved to dismiss this adversary proceeding in light of the injunction.
ln response to the oral m otion to dism iss, Plaintiff argued that the District Court's withdrawal of reference in the M BM and M atz cases invalidated the 1996 injunction, and that withdrawal of the reference eliminated this Court's ability to enforce the injunction. (Docket No. 58).
After the Court entered its M em orandum Opinion and Order Dism issing Adversary Proceeding, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration.Plaintiff argues that sanctions usurp the scope of the injunction, suggesting that minutes of a hearing in the District Court support Plaintiff s interpretation that the injunction was to expire when monetary sanctions were paid; Plaintiff contends this Court did not follow controlling authority on the im position of sanctions. (Docket No. 71),
lcase N os . 95-47986-1-14-1 1 and 95-47987-1-14-1 1.
P:ïdate-20171031.wpd
Plaintiff s arpzments (previously rejected by this Court) wrongly characterize the relief granted. Imposing a new injunction on future ûlings requires the Court to consider the circumstances of the case, including: (1) the party's history of litigation, in particular whether he has filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis for pursuing the litigation, or simply intended to harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and other parties resulting from the party's slings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions. ln re Carroll, 851 F.3d 8 1 1 (5th Cir. 2017).
The case at bar does not present a question of whether to impose a new injunction. The 1996 injunction is final, and should be acknowledged and obeyed. W R. Grace tt Co. v. f ocal Union 759, Intern. Union ofunited Rubber, Cork L inoleum and Plastic Workers ofAmerica, 461 U.S. 757, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983).
I1. The Court Awards Defendant's Attorney Fees as Sanctions Against Plaintiff In a civil contempt proceeding, the moving party need only show (i) that a court order was in effect; (ii) the order required certain conduct by the respondent; and (iii) the respondent failed to comply with the court's order. F.D.f C. v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 1995).
The 1996 injunction remains in effect.The injunction requires Plaintiff to seek leave from the Court before filing an adversary proceeding. Plaintiff failed to comply and instead tiled the adversary proceeding w ithout leave from the Court.The Court has discretion to aw ard attorney fees incurred by Defendant in responding to Plaintiff s violation of the injunction. See Carroll, 851 F.3d, at 8 16. Counsel for D efendant shall subm it a bill for attorney fees and costs P:ydate-20171031.wpd
e
incurred in this adversary proceeding within 14 days. Plaintiff will have 7 days thereafter to file a KSPODSC. >
Signed at Houston, Texas on this 3 S Day of & , 2017.
- [*] KAREN K. ROW N UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE P:hdate-20171031.wpd