In re: Ricky Mott

Background

Ricky Mott, representing himself, appealed an April 24, 2025 order from the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court dismissing his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposing a continuing bar on refiling. The bankruptcy case was No. 25-B-10110. The district-court appeal was brought after an adverse ruling in a New York state court holdover proceeding. Mott sought to stay that proceeding while his appeal was pending.

The district court stated that Mott had used several aliases, including Armando Pons, Audi Pons, and Ari Pons. It described prior bankruptcy courts as having found a pattern of bad-faith and frivolous filings and noted that, in a prior bankruptcy case, Judge Sean H. Lane had entered a litigation-bar order. That order prohibited Mott from filing bankruptcy pleadings anywhere in the country, for himself or someone else, without permission from the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court.

In the bankruptcy case underlying this appeal, Judge Lane found that Mott was actually Armando Pons, the person covered by the litigation bar. Judge Lane also found that Mott filed the case in bad faith, failed to provide his Social Security number or other information required by Bankruptcy Rule 1007(f), failed to attend the creditors’ meeting required by 11 U.S.C. § 341(a), and violated the litigation-bar order. The bankruptcy petition was dismissed.

Motions and Legal Standards

Mott filed a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and a Motion for Judicial Intervention. Both motions sought a stay of the state-court holdover proceeding. The Judicial Intervention Motion also referred to unspecified problems with filing documents and communicating with the bankruptcy court.

Under Bankruptcy Rule 8007, a party seeking a stay pending appeal must show: (1) irreparable injury without a stay; (2) no substantial harm to other parties; (3) that the public interest supports a stay; and (4) a substantial possibility of success on the merits. The court identified the likelihood of success and irreparable injury as the most important factors and stated that a chance of success greater than negligible was required.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Mott had not shown more than a negligible possibility of success on appeal. It concluded that filing the bankruptcy case in direct violation of the litigation-bar order made the filing legally void from the beginning. The court also stated that dismissal was independently justified by Mott’s failure to provide his Social Security number and failure to attend the creditors’ meeting. The court cited Bankruptcy Code provisions stating that unreasonable delays in complying with the Code can provide good cause to dismiss a Chapter 7 case.

The court noted that Mott did not challenge the bankruptcy court’s finding that he was covered by the litigation-bar order or the factual findings supporting dismissal. Instead, he referred generally to procedural obstacles, including alleged mishandling of filings and communications. The only example identified was a warning that emailing documents to the courtroom email address did not replace filing them with the clerk’s office. The district court held that requiring standard filing procedures did not deny Mott due process.

Disposition

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied the Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and the Motion for Judicial Intervention. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 4 and 5. This order addressed the two motions; the opinion does not state that the district court decided the underlying appeal from the bankruptcy dismissal.