Greene v. Sampson
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-06103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Greene v. Sampson, Judge Halpern ordered Greene to explain why her action against bankruptcy-discharged defendants should not be dismissed.
Kivia C. Greene and the remaining defendants, Diane and Sean Sampson. The order required Greene to explain why the action against the Sampsons should not be dismissed because of their bankruptcy discharge.
What happened
In Greene v. Sampson, Kivia C. Greene sued Diane and Sean Sampson and others. The Sampsons filed for bankruptcy, listed Greene’s lawsuit as a debt, and received a discharge after Greene had notice of the bankruptcy case and the deadline to object.
The court explained that the bankruptcy discharge generally prevents continuing a civil action against the discharged debtors. Because Greene did not object to the discharge within the allowed time, the court ordered her to explain in writing why the action against the Sampsons should not be dismissed.
Judge Philip M. Halpern required Greene to respond by March 5, 2021, and stated that failing to respond would result in dismissal of the case. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Sampson · No. 7:18-cv-06103
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Kivia C. Greene brought this action against Diane and Sean Sampson and other defendants. On January 14, 2019, the Sampsons filed a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. They listed Greene as a creditor and identified her lawsuit against them and state officials in their amended bankruptcy schedules.
Greene received notice of the bankruptcy case, including the April 15, 2019 deadline to object to discharge or challenge whether particular debts could be discharged. That deadline was extended to June 13, 2019 for the United States Trustee and the Chapter 7 trustee. On June 21, 2019, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging the Sampsons’ debts and closed the bankruptcy case. The opinion states that Greene received notice of the discharge order and did not object to the Sampsons’ discharge within the permitted time.
The bankruptcy case was later reopened for a limited purpose involving an alleged violation of the discharge order by Brain and Spine Surgeons of New York PC. The bankruptcy court granted the Sampsons’ motion for contempt in that matter and later denied reconsideration. The bankruptcy case was eventually closed again.
Proceedings in This Action
After the Sampsons’ discharge, their counsel argued that the action should be withdrawn as against them because it was barred by the discharge order. The court allowed Greene to amend her complaint, but she did not file another amended pleading. The Sampsons then answered the amended complaint and asserted that the discharge order barred the action against them.
In a separate memorandum opinion and order issued the same day, the court granted dismissal motions filed by Nicholas D’ Alessandro, Matthew Orsino, Jose Carrion, and Marcus Molinaro. The Sampsons were therefore the only remaining defendants in this action.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), which provides that a bankruptcy discharge operates as an injunction against continuing a civil action of this kind. The court also stated that the time to challenge dischargeability had expired under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), and that violations of a discharge injunction may be punished as contempt.
Order
The court ordered Greene to show cause in writing by March 5, 2021, why the action against the remaining defendants, the Sampsons, should not be dismissed under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). The court stated that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the case. This opinion is an order to show cause; it does not itself state that the action was dismissed. The Clerk was directed to mail copies of the order to show cause to the pro se parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.