Monplaisir v. The City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-01882
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Monplaisir v. City of New York, Judge Liman said bankruptcy does not automatically halt Andy Monplaisir’s lawsuit and sought responses before deciding dismissal.
Andy Monplaisir and the defendants in his pending lawsuit, including the City of New York and the Department of Finance.
What happened
In Monplaisir v. The City of New York, Andy Monplaisir told the court that he and his wife had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The lawsuit against the City of New York, the Department of Finance, and other defendants was still pending.
The court explained that bankruptcy usually pauses lawsuits brought against the person who filed for bankruptcy, but that protection does not automatically pause a lawsuit brought by the bankruptcy filer. The court therefore said Monplaisir’s bankruptcy status alone did not prevent this case from continuing.
Judge Lewis J. Liman had not yet decided the defendants’ request to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a legal claim. He directed the parties to report by April 25, 2025, whether they objected to deciding that request while the bankruptcy case continued and whether anyone wanted oral argument. The court said it intended to decide the request based on the written submissions.
The detailed version
- Monplaisir v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-01882
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Andy Monplaisir informed the court that he and his wife had filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
The defendants had a pending motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legal claim for relief.
Bankruptcy and the Lawsuit
The court explained that filing a bankruptcy petition creates an automatic stay, which generally pauses the start or continuation of actions against the bankruptcy debtor. The court also explained that the stay does not apply to a lawsuit brought by the debtor. Based on that distinction, the court held that Monplaisir’s bankruptcy status alone did not prevent this lawsuit from proceeding.
Court’s Order
The court did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that it intended to decide the motion based on the papers already submitted and ordered the parties, by no later than April 25, 2025, to inform the court whether they objected to deciding the motion while the bankruptcy case was proceeding and whether any party wanted oral argument.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Monplaisir at his last known address because he was representing himself. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.