Zweben v. Shirk
- Cisneros
- 3:23-cv-00591
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zweben v. Shirk, Judge Cisneros stayed the case under bankruptcy law, vacated the conference, and ordered administrative closure.
The case affects plaintiffs Alena Zweben and Zweben Naturopathic PLLC and defendants Matthew Marshall Shirk and Simple Advertising and Internet Design, LLC. The stay pauses this case while the defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings are pending or while the automatic stay applies.
What happened
In Zweben v. Shirk, Alena Zweben and Zweben Naturopathic PLLC told the court that defendants Matthew Marshall Shirk and Simple Advertising and Internet Design, LLC had filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The defendants had been served but had not appeared.
The court explained that filing for bankruptcy automatically pauses actions to collect or recover debts. It stayed this case, vacated the May 11, 2023, case-management conference, and directed the plaintiffs to update the docket when the bankruptcy proceedings end or when they believe the pause no longer applies.
Judge Cisneros also ordered the clerk to administratively close Zweben v. Shirk, while explaining that this internal step does not affect the parties’ substantive rights.
The detailed version
- Zweben v. Shirk · No. 3:23-cv-00591
- Cisneros
- Mar. 29, 2023
Background
On March 28, 2023, plaintiffs Alena Zweben and Zweben Naturopathic PLLC, doing business as Market Place Naturopathic, filed a notice concerning defendants Matthew Marshall Shirk and Simple Advertising and Internet Design, LLC. The plaintiffs reported that both defendants had filed bankruptcy proceedings in the Northern District of California on March 15, 2023, and provided copies of the bankruptcy notices. The court stated that both defendants had been served but neither had appeared.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that filing a bankruptcy petition creates a bankruptcy estate protected by an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). An automatic stay is a legal pause that begins when the bankruptcy petition is filed and generally stops actions by entities seeking to collect or recover on claims. Based on the defendants’ bankruptcy filings, the court stayed this case under § 362(a).
Order
The court vacated the Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for May 11, 2023. It directed the plaintiffs to file a notice explaining the status of the case when the bankruptcy proceedings conclude, or earlier if they believe the automatic stay no longer applies. The clerk was instructed to administratively close the case. The court stated that administrative closure is an internal procedure that does not affect the parties’ substantive rights. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.