Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 1 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

PAUL R. GLASSMAN (State Bar No. 76536) LAURA L. BUCHANAN (State Bar No. 156261) KATHLEEN D. DeVANEY (State Bar No. 156444) STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A Professional Corporation 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (424) 214-7000 Facsimile: (424) 214-7010 E-mail: pglassman@sycr.com lbuchanan@sycr.com kdevaney@sycr.com JAMES F. PENMAN (State Bar No. 91761) OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 300 N. D STREET, Sixth Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Telephone: (909) 384-5355 Facsimile: (909) 384-5238 E-mail: Penman_Ja@sbcity.org Attorneys for Debtor City of San Bernardino UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE DIVISION In re CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, Debtor. Case No. 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Chapter 9 Adv. Proc. ________________-MJ

__________________________________ COMPLAINT FOR: (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING SCOPE OF CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AUTOMATIC STAY; (2) EXTENSION OF CALIFORNIA, AUTOMATIC STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (3) INJUNCTIVE OR Plaintiff, OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF v. JOSE MUNOZ, an individual; and MICHAEL WADE, an individual; Defendants.

COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 2 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

The City of San Bernardino, California, debtor in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the Plaintiff or City), hereby brings this complaint and alleges, on information and belief, as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b). This adversary proceeding relates to In re City of San Bernardino, California, Case No. 6:12-28006-MJ, which was commenced by the City on August 1, 2012, by filing a petition under chapter 9 of title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Riverside Division. 2. 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1409. The statutory and legal predicates for the relief sought herein are 105(a),

362(a), and 922 of the Bankruptcy Code, Rule 7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants. PARTIES 5. The City is a political subdivision of the State of California and a municipality

within the meaning of Section 109(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

6. Defendant Jose Munoz is an individual who filed a Complaint For: 1) Assault; 2)

Battery; 3) Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; 4) Negligence; 5) Negligence; 6) Deprivation Of Civil Rights In Violation Of The Unruh Civil Rights Act - Civil Code 51, et seq. 7) Violation Of Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City, the San Bernardino Police Department, and certain third party police officers employed by the City, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, being Case No. CIVDS 1110863 (the Munoz Action). 7. Defendant Michael Wade is an individual who filed a Complaint For: (1)

Unreasonable Search and Seizure and Due Process Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. 1983); (2) Denial -1COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 3 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983); and (3) Municipal Liability For Unconstitutional Custom, Practice or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, being Case No. CV 11 09831 GRK SPx against the City, a police officer and other unnamed officers and supervisors employed by the City identified as Doe Defendants 1-10 (the Wade Action). 8. The Munoz Action and Wade Action are referred to as the Actions. Defendant

Munoz and Defendant Wade are referred to as the Defendants. All of the defendants in the Actions are collectively sometimes referred to in this Complaint as the Third Party Officers.

9.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7020, the City brings this

complaint against the Defendants together because the basis of the complaint is the same for all Defendants. The City alleges that the relief requested raises common questions of law and fact as to both Defendants because the City requests that the Court determine that: (a) the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a) and 922 applies and stays the continued prosecution of claims alleged against the Third Party Officers in the Actions; and/or (b) the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a) extends to the Third Party Officers based on the unusual circumstances doctrine or, alternatively; (c) even if the automatic stay does not directly apply or should not be extended, injunctive relief under section Bankruptcy Code 105(a) is warranted to enjoin the Actions until the City confirms a plan of adjustment of its debts or such other date as the Court may set. Thus, the City believes it is appropriate to bring a single complaint against both Defendants. Bringing the complaint as a single complaint relieves the Court of the burden of two separate adversary proceedings and helps preserve the assets of the City by preventing the incurrence of additional professional fees and costs that would likely arise from litigating two separate adversary proceedings instead of one. NATURE OF THE ACTION 10. This adversary proceeding alleges claims for (a) declaratory relief finding that the

automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a) and 922(a) applies to prevent Defendants from continuing prosecution of the Actions against the Third Party Officers and/or (b) an extension of the automatic stay to the claims alleged in the Actions against the Third Party Officers under the -2COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 4 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

unusual circumstances doctrine or, alternatively, (c) injunctive or other equitable relief that enjoins and restrains the Defendants from continuing the Actions against the Third Party Officers and from commencing any similar action or proceeding by or on behalf of the Defendants based on the allegations set forth in the Actions. The City seeks this relief and to stay or enjoin the proceedings against the Third Party Officers named in the Actions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105(a), 362(a) and 922(a) because: (a) the City seeks to avoid expending time and resources of the City participating in litigation, notwithstanding the fact that the Actions are stayed as to the City to the detriment of the Citys reorganization efforts under chapter 9; (b) judgments against the Third Party Officers could affect property of the City because the City is obligated to pay the costs to defend and indemnify the Third Party Officers with respect to any liability they may incur in the Actions as a matter of California law; and (c) the City could be subject to substantial collateral estoppel risks (due to respondeat superior, agency and similar allegations), which will effectively require the City to actively participate in the Actions, with substantial costs to the City and distraction of its employees.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11.

On August 1, 2012 (the Petition Date), the City filed a voluntary petition for

relief under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. 12. Prior to the Petition Date, Defendant Munoz commenced the Munoz Action

against the City, the San Bernardino Police Department, and three police officers employed by the City. Defendant Munoz alleges that he suffered certain physical injuries and violations of his rights in an incident in which police officers were investigating a child custody dispute between Defendant Munoz and the childs mother. Defendant Munoz alleges damages based on claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, deprivation of civil rights in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act - Civil Code 51, et seq., and violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendant Munoz alleges that his claims arise from actions taken by each of the police officers in their official capacities and within the course and scope of their employment by the City and that the defendants acted in concert with each other. -3COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 5 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

13.

On September 12, 2012, the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino

issued a minute order which states, in relevant part, that [t]he Court does not have the authority to grant an automatic stay re: individual defendants as to City of San Bernardino bankruptcy filing. Counsel to confirm as to whether the bankruptcy filing by the City Of San Bernardino pertains to an automatic stay as to individual defendants. 14. Prior to the Petition Date, Defendant Wade commenced an action against the City,

an individual police officer and certain unnamed officers and supervisors alleging damages for various tort claims and violations of his civil rights during an incident between police officers and Defendant Wade. Defendant Wade alleges, among other things, that he suffered injuries and damages as a result of unreasonable search and seizure and failure to provide medical care under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendant Wade also alleges that the individual officer defendant is sued in his individual capacity for damages only and that at all relevant times the officer and other unnamed defendants were duly authorized employees and agents of the City, who were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their respective duties as police officers and with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant City. Defendant Wade seeks damages against the City and the officers based on the officers acts performed in the course and scope of their employment by the City. 15. The City filed a Notice of Automatic Stay in the Wade Action on August 6, 2012.

On September 17, 2012, the District Court held a hearing on the Parties Joint Status report and entered a Minute Order which states, in relevant part, that [t]o the extent that San Bernardino wishes to stay this matter as to [Officer] Affrunti, we direct it to seek such relief in the first instance in the bankruptcy court within thirty (30) days hereof, failing which any potential request by San Bernardino to extend the automatic stay to [Officer] Affrunti shall be deemed waived in this matter. 16. California law imposes an obligation on a public entity to defend an employee

against civil actions brought against such employee in his official or individual capacity, or both, arising from acts or omissions in the scope of their employment. In addition, California law requires that if the action results in a judgment adverse to the employee or settles, the public -4COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 6 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

entity is obligated to pay any claim or judgment against its employees in favor of third-party plaintiffs. As a result, the City must pay defense costs and indemnify the Third Party Officers against the claims alleged in the Actions at the expense and to the detriment of other creditors and its citizens and its efforts to formulate a plan of adjustment on its debts. The City does not have insurance to pay defense costs for the Third Party Officers in the Actions and is self-insured up to the amount of $1,000,000 for any liability arising from the claims alleged in the Actions. 17. If the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922 is not determined to apply

directly to stay the Actions against the Third Party Officers or the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922 is not extended under the unusual circumstances doctrine or, alternatively, injunctive relief is not granted under 11 U.S.C. 105, the City is likely to suffer irreparable harm because, among other things: a. Judgments against the Third Party Officers in the Actions could affect

property of the City because the City has obligations under California law to pay the costs to defend and to indemnify the Third-Party Officers with respect to any liability they may incur in connection with the Actions; b. the continued prosecution of the claims against the Third Party Officers in

the Actions will require the City and its employees to expend time and resources participating in the litigation, notwithstanding the fact that such Actions are stayed as against the City, to the detriment of the Citys reorganization efforts under chapter 9; and c. the City could be subject to substantial collateral estoppel risks (due to

respondent superior, agency, or similar allegations), which will effectively compel the City to actively participate in the Actions, with substantial cost to the City and distraction of its employees. /// /// /// /// /// -5COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 7 of 19
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

Application and Scope of the Automatic Stay (11 U.S.C. 362 and 922) (Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants)

18. forth herein. 19.

Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 above as though fully set

Section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the commencement or

continuation of any act to recover a claim against the City that arose before the commencement of a bankruptcy case. The Defendants seek to recover on claims that arose against the Third Party Officers before the commencement of the Citys chapter 9 case for which the City is obligated to pay defense costs and indemnify the Third Party Officers as a matter of California law. 20. Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits any act to obtain possession

or exercise control over property of the City. The City has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Third Party Officers in the Actions. The continuation of the Actions will have an adverse impact on property of the City as obligations are incurred and additional claims may be asserted. 21. In a chapter 9 case, there is also a supplemental stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

922(a) in addition to the stay provided by section 362 of the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against an officer or inhabitant of the debtor that seeks to enforce a claim against the debtor. The Third Party Officers are officers for purposes of Section 922(a) and the automatic stay provisions imposed by section 922(a) stay the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the Third Party Officers that seeks to enforce a claim against the City. 22. A present and actual controversy between the Plaintiff, on the one hand, and

Defendants, on the other hand, with respect to the scope and application of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922 exists to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the automatic -6COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 8 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

stay under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922 applies to the Third Party Officers, and Defendants continued prosecution of the Actions is in violation of the automatic stay. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants contend that the automatic stay does not apply to the Third Party Officers and continued prosecution of the Actions is not in violation of the automatic stay. In light of the continued prosecution of the Actions by Defendants and the orders issued by the Courts in the Actions, a prompt judicial determination of the respective rights and duties of the parties is necessary and appropriate.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Extension of the Automatic Stay (11 U.S.C. 362) (Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants)

23. forth herein. 24.

Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 above as though fully set

To the extent that the Actions against the Third Party Officers are not stayed

automatically under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922, unusual circumstances exist to extend the stay to the Third Party Officers because the City is required to defend the Third Party Officers and pay any judgment against them, so there is such an identity between the City and the Third Party Officers that defense of the Actions will require a defense by the City and judgments or settlements against the Third Party Officers will in effect be judgments or settlements against the City. In addition, the City has a strong likelihood of success on the merits because it has a reasonable likelihood of a successful reorganization; the City will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted and the Defendants will suffer little harm so the balance of hardships favors the City; and the public interests in reorganization of chapter 9 debtors, in the health, safety and well-being of the Citys citizenry, and in protecting police officers from having to defend proceedings against them for their actions in the course and scope of performing their duties as employees of the City support extending the stay. 25. The continued prosecution of the Actions against the Third Party Officers will

cause the City to suffer irreparable harm as alleged in paragraph 18 above. -7COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 9 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

26.

A present and actual controversy between the Plaintiff, on the one hand, and

Defendants, on the other hand, exists with respect to the extension of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922 to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922 should be extended to the Third Party Officers under the unusual circumstances doctrine. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants contend that the automatic should not be extended to the Third Party Officers. In light of the continued prosecution of the Actions by Defendants and the orders issued by the Courts in the Actions, a prompt judicial determination of the respective rights and duties of the parties is necessary and appropriate. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Issuance of Injunctive Or Other Equitable Relief (11 U.S.C. 105) (Injunctive Relief Against All Defendants) 27. forth herein. 28. If the Court determines that the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code 362 Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 above as though fully set

and 922 does not directly apply or cannot be extended to the Third Party Officers in the Actions, the City seeks an injunction staying the continued prosecution of the Actions under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code until the effective date of the a chapter 9 plan of the City or such other date as the Court may set. 29. If the Actions are allowed to continue, the City will suffer irreparable harm as

alleged in paragraph 18 above. 30. The City has a strong likelihood of success on the merits because the City has a

reasonable likelihood of a successful reorganization, the harm to the City if a preliminary injunction is not issued will significantly outweigh any harm suffered by the Defendants if the Actions are enjoined. 31. An injunction will protect the City facilitate the Citys successful reorganization

efforts and facilitate a plan of adjustment of its debt and promoting the public interest by -8COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 10 of 19

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S TRADLING Y OCCA C ARLSON & R AUTH
L AW Y E R S NE W PO R T BE A C H

preventing: (a) judgments against the Third Party Officers in the Actions from affecting property of the City because the City has obligations under California law to pay the costs to defend and to indemnify the Third-Party Officers with respect to any liability they may incur in connection with the Actions; (b) the continued prosecution of the Actions against the Third Party Officers in which would otherwise require the City and its employees to expend time and resources participating in the litigation, notwithstanding the fact that such Actions are stayed as against the City, to the detriment of the Citys reorganization efforts under chapter 9; and (c) the City from being subject to substantial collateral estoppel risks (due to respondent superior, agency, or similar allegations), which will effectively compel the City to actively participate in the Actions, with substantial cost to the City and distraction of its employees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment as follows: (i) a declaration that the Actions against the Third Party Officers are stayed by the automatic stay imposed by sections 362(a) and 922(a) of the Bankruptcy Code; and/or (ii) a declaration that the automatic stay of sections 362(a) and 922(a) of the Bankruptcy Code should be and is extended to stay the Actions against the Third Party Officers; and/or (iii) a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code enjoining the continued prosecution of the Actions, or the commencement of any similar action or proceeding by or on behalf of the Defendants based on the allegations set forth in the Actions; and (iv) such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. Dated: October 17, 2012 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A Professional Corporation By: /s/ Paul R. Glassman Paul R. Glassman Attorneys for City of San Bernardino, Debtor

-9COMPLAINT
DOCSOC/1585416v7/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 11 of 19

Desc

Attorney or Party Name, Address, Telephone & FAX Nos., State Bar No. & Email Address

FOR COURT USE ONLY

Paul R. Glassman (State Bar No. 76536) Laura L. Buchanan (State Bar No. 156261) Kathleen D. DeVaney (State Bar No. 156444) STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A Professional Corporation 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (424) 214-7000 Facsimile: (424) 214-7010 Email: pglassman@sycr.com; lbuchanan@sycr.com kdevaney@sycr.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - RIVERSIDE DIVISION DIVISION
In re: CASE NO.: 6:12-28006-MJ CHAPTER: 9

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

Debtor(s).

ADVERSARY NUMBER:

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff(s) Versus

JOSE MUNOZ, an individual; and MICHAEL WADE, an individual

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS AND NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING [LBR 7004-1]

TO THE DEFENDANT: A Complaint has been filed by the Plaintiff against you. If you wish to defend against the Complaint, you must file with the court a written pleading in response to the Complaint. You must also serve a copy of your written response on the party shown in the upper left-hand corner of this page. The deadline to file and serve a . If you do not timely file and serve the response, the court may enter a judgment by written response is default against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. A status conference in the adversary proceeding commenced by the Complaint has been set for: Hearing Date: Time: Courtroom: 301 Place: 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 3420 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 1415 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 21041 Burbank Boulevard, Woodland Hills, CA 91367

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012 Page 1

F 7004-1.SUMMONS.ADV.PROC

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 12 of 19

Desc

You must comply with LBR 7016-1, which requires you to file a joint status report and to appear at a status conference. All parties must read and comply with the rule, even if you are representing yourself. You must cooperate with the other parties in the case and file a joint status report with the court and serve it on the appropriate parties at least 14 days before a status conference. A court-approved joint status report form is available on the courts website (LBR form F 7016-1.1) with an attachment for additional parties if necessary (LBR form F 7016-1.1a). If the other parties do not cooperate in filing a joint status report, you still must file with the court a unilateral status report and the accompanying required declaration instead of a joint status report 7 days before the status conference. The court may fine you or impose other sanctions if you do not file a status report. The court may also fine you or impose other sanctions if you fail to appear at a status conference.

KATHLEEN J. CAMPBELL CLERK OF COURT

Date of Issuance of Summons and Notice of Status Conference in Adversary Proceeding:

By: Deputy Clerk

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012 Page 2

F 7004-1.SUMMONS.ADV.PROC

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 13 of 19

Desc

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:

A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled: SUMMONS AND NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING [LBR 7004-1] will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On (date) _______________, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:

Service information continued on attached page 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On (date) _______________, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

Service information continued on attached page 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) _______________, I served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

Service information continued on attached page I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date

Printed Name

Signature

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012 Page 3

F 7004-1.SUMMONS.ADV.PROC

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ
FORM B104 (08/07)

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Desc Main Document Page 14 of 19 2007 USBC, Central District of California
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only)

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET (Instructions on Page 2)

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

JOSE MUNOZ; MICHAEL WADE (see attachment for addresses) Neil S. Steiner (Counsel to Munoz) (310) 273-7778 Dale K. Galipo (Counsel to Michael Wade) (818) 347-3333 (see attachment for addresses)
PARTY (Check One Box Only) ATTORNEYS (If Known)

Paul R. Glassman, STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440, Santa Monica CA 90401 (424) 214-7021
PARTY (Check One Box Only)

ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)

Debtor G
G Creditor G Trustee

G U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin G Other

G Debtor G Creditor G Trustee

G U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin G Other

CAUSE OF ACTION (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) Plaintiff seeks an order that (a) declares that the automatic stay of 11 USC Sections 362(a) and 922(a) applies to Defendant's action against individual police officers of Plaintiff, (b) extends the automatic stay to such action, and/or (c) enjoins or restrains Defendant from continuing such action and from commencing any similar action pursuant to 11 USC Section 105(a).

NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) FRBP 7001(1) Recovery of Money/Property

G G G G G G G G G G G

11-Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property 12-Recovery of money/property - 547 preference 13-Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer 14-Recovery of money/property - other

G G G G G
XX G XX G

FRBP 7001(6) Dischargeability (continued) 61-Dischargeability - 523(a)(5), domestic support 68-Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury 63-Dischargeability - 523(a)(8), student loan 64-Dischargeability - 523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation (other than domestic support) 65-Dischargeability - other

FRBP 7001(2) Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property

FRBP 7001(7) Injunctive Relief 71-Injunctive relief imposition of stay 72-Injunctive relief other

FRBP 7001(3) Approval of Sale of Property 31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - 363(h)

FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest

FRBP 7001(4) Objection/Revocation of Discharge 41-Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e)

G G G G G

81-Subordination of claim or interest

FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment XX 91-Declaratory judgment FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action 01-Determination of removed claim or cause Other SS-SIPA Case 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et.seq. 02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy case)

FRBP 7001(5) Revocation of Confirmation 51-Revocation of confirmation FRBP 7001(6) Dischargeability 66-Dischargeability - 523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims 62-Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud 67-Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny (continued next column)

G Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law G Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint
Other Relief Sought

G Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23

Demand $

A declaration that the actions by the defendants against certain police officers in other courts are stayed by the automatic stay imposed by sections 362(a) and 922(a) of the Bankruptcy Code; and/or a declaration that the automatic stay of sections 362(a) and 922(a) of the Bankruptcy Code should be and is extended to stay such actions; and/or a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code enjoining the continued prosecution of such actions, or the commencement of any similar action or proceeding by or on behalf of the defendants based on the allegations set forth in such actions.

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ
FORM B104 (08/07), page 2

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Desc Main Document Page 15 of 19 2007 USBC, Central District of California
BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.

BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES

NAME OF DEBTOR

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING DIVISIONAL OFFICE

6:12-28006-MJ
NAME OF JUDGE

CENTRAL DISTRICT

RIVERSIDE
RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY)

MEREDITH JURY

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO.

DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING

DIVISIONAL OFFICE

NAME OF JUDGE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)

DATE

PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)

10/17/12

Paul R. Glassman

INSTRUCTIONS
The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an "estate" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtors discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding. A party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 104, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the courts Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 104 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity. The cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiffs attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed. Plaintiffs and Defendents. Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint. Attorneys. Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known. Party. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants. Demand. Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint. Signature. This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not presented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 16 of 19

Desc

Attachment to Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Plaintiff City of San Bernardino, California City Hall 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Defendant Jose Munoz 780 West Trenton Street San Bernardino, CA 92405 Defendant Michael Malcom Wade CDCR# AB7405 c/o Pleasant Valley State Prison P.O. Box 8500 Coalinga, CA 93210 Counsel to Defendant Jose Munoz Neil S. Steiner Steiner & Libo, Professional Corporation 433 N Camden Dr Suite 730 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4411 Counsel to Defendant Michael Wade Law Offices of Dale K Galipo 21800 Burbank Boulevard Suite 310 Woodland Hills, CA 91367

DOCSOC/1589083v1/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 17 of 19

Desc

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440, Santa Monica, CA 90401. A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING SCOPE OF AUTOMATIC STAY; (2) EXTENSION OF AUTOMATIC STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (3) INJUNCTIVE OR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF [INCLUDING SUMMONS AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET] will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On October 17, 2012, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: Jerrold Abeles abeles.jerry@arentfox.com, labarreda.vivian@arentfox.com Joseph M Adams jadams@lawjma.com Andrew K Alper aalper@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;ekidder@frandzel.com Thomas V Askounis taskounis@askounisdarcy.com Anthony Bisconti tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com Jeffrey E Bjork jbjork@sidley.com Sarah C Boone sboone@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com J Scott Bovitz bovitz@bovitz-spitzer.com Jeffrey W Broker jbroker@brokerlaw.biz Deana M Brown dbrown@milbank.com Michael J Bujold Michael.J.Bujold@usdoj.gov Christopher H Conti chc@sdlaborlaw.com, sak@sdlaborlaw.com Christina M Craige ccraige@sidley.com Alex Darcy adarcy@askounisdarcy.com Susan S Davis sdavis@coxcastle.com Robert H Dewberry robert.dewberry@dewlaw.net Todd J Dressel dressel@chapman.com, lubecki@chapman.com Chrysta L Elliott elliottc@ballardspahr.com, manthiek@ballardspahr.com Scott Ewing contact@omnimgt.com, sewing@omnimgt.com Paul R. Glassman pglassman@sycr.com David M Goodrich dgoodrich@marshackhays.com Everett L Green everett.l.green@usdoj.gov Chad V Haes chaes@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com James A Hayes jhayes@cwlawyers.com M Jonathan Hayes jhayes@hayesbklaw.com, roksana@hayesbklaw.com;carolyn@hayesbklaw.com;elizabeth@hayesbklaw.com D Edward Hays ehays@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com Eric M Heller eric.m.heller@irscounsel.treas.gov Bonnie M Holcomb bonnie.holcomb@doj.ca.gov Whitman L Holt wholt@ktbslaw.com Michelle C Hribar mch@sdlaborlaw.com Steven J Katzman SKatzman@bmkattorneys.com Jane Kespradit jane.kespradit@limruger.com, amy.lee@limruger.com Mette H Kurth kurth.mette@arentfox.com Michael B Lubic michael.lubic@klgates.com Richard A Marshack rmarshack@marshackhays.com, lbergini@marshackhays.com;ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com Gregory A Martin gmartin@winston.com
This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

DOCSOC/1589104v1/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 18 of 19

Desc

David J Mccarty dmccarty@sheppardmullin.com, pibsen@sheppardmullin.com Reed M Mercado rmercado@sheppardmullin.com Aron M Oliner roliner@duanemorris.com Scott H Olson solson@seyfarth.com Dean G Rallis drallis@sulmeyerlaw.com Christopher O Rivas crivas@reedsmith.com Kenneth N Russak krussak@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;dmoore@frandzel.com Gregory M Salvato gsalvato@salvatolawoffices.com, calendar@salvatolawoffices.com Mark C Schnitzer mschnitzer@rhlaw.com, mschnitzer@verizon.net Benjamin Seigel bseigel@buchalter.com, IFS_filing@buchalter.com Diane S Shaw diane.shaw@doj.ca.gov Jason D Strabo jstrabo@mwe.com, apolin@mwe.com Matthew J Troy matthew.troy@usdoj.gov United States Trustee (RS) ustpregion16.rs.ecf@usdoj.gov Anne A Uyeda auyeda@bmkattorneys.com Annie Verdries verdries@lbbslaw.com Brian D Wesley brian.wesley@doj.ca.gov Kirsten A Roe Worley kworley@wthf.com, bcordova@wthf.com Service information continued on attached page 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On October 17, 2012, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Service information continued on attached page 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on October 17, 2012, I served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Honorable Meredith A. Jury (Overnight delivery) U.S. Bankruptcy Court 3420 Twelfth Street, Suite 325 / Courtroom 301 Riverside, CA 92501-3819

Service information continued on attached page I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

October 17, 2012

Date

Christine Pesis
Printed Name

/s/ Christine Pesis

Signature

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

DOCSOC/1589104v1/200430-0003

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Attachment to Proof of Service

Doc 198 Filed 10/17/12 Entered 10/17/12 15:50:18 Main Document Page 19 of 19

Desc

2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Defendant Jose Munoz 780 West Trenton Street San Bernardino, CA 92405 Defendant Michael Malcom Wade CDCR# AB7405 c/o Pleasant Valley State Prison P.O. Box 8500 Coalinga, CA 93210 Counsel to Defendant Jose Munoz Neil S. Steiner, Esq. Steiner & Libo, Professional Corporation 433 N Camden Dr Suite 730 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4411 Counsel to Defendant Michael Wade Dale K Galipo, Esq. Law Offices of Dale K Galipo 21800 Burbank Boulevard Suite 310 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Everett L Green Office of the US Trustee 3685 Main St Ste 300 Riverside, CA 92501

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

DOCSOC/1589104v1/200430-0003