Lawrence v. Flohr
- Sidney Stein
- 1:23-cv-09844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lawrence v. Flohr, Judge Parker paused the conference and required positions on staying the entire case after Flohr filed bankruptcy.
Plaintiff Stephen Lawrence, Defendant Thomas Michael Flohr, and the parties involved in Defendant’s third-party complaint. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant and Plaintiff’s pending discovery-sanctions motion are subject to the automatic stay; the court requested positions on whether the entire case should also be stayed.
What happened
In Lawrence v. Flohr, the court addressed the effect of Defendant Thomas Michael Flohr’s bankruptcy filing on the pending case. The court noted that the bankruptcy filing automatically stayed Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant.
The court also stated that Plaintiff’s pending motion seeking discovery sanctions was stayed. Although claims brought by the bankruptcy debtor against others are ordinarily not covered by the automatic stay, the court said it has discretion to pause the entire case for efficiency.
Judge Katharine H. Parker adjourned the February 27, 2025 Case Management Conference without setting a new date. She ordered the parties to file a joint letter by March 10, 2025 stating each side’s position on whether the entire case, including claims in Defendant’s third-party complaint, should be stayed.
The detailed version
- Lawrence v. Flohr · No. 1:23-cv-09844
- Sidney Stein
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
The court received filings concerning Defendant Thomas Michael Flohr’s bankruptcy filing. A Case Management Conference had been scheduled for February 27, 2025. Plaintiff also had a pending motion seeking discovery sanctions.
Automatic stay
The court stated that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are subject to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. An automatic stay generally pauses actions against a person who has filed for bankruptcy. The court specifically clarified that Plaintiff’s pending motion for discovery sanctions is stayed.
The court explained that third-party complaints, crossclaims, and counterclaims brought by the bankruptcy debtor are ordinarily not subject to the automatic stay because they are not claims against the debtor. The court nevertheless noted that it has discretion to stay proceedings in their entirety to promote efficient use of the court’s and the parties’ time.
Ruling and next step
Judge Katharine H. Parker adjourned the February 27 Case Management Conference without setting a new date. The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by March 10, 2025 stating each side’s position on whether the entire case should be stayed, including the claims in Defendant’s third-party complaint. The order did not decide whether the entire case would be stayed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.