Ramirez v. Jenner & Block LLP
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-04674
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ramirez v. Jenner & Block LLP, Judge Swain transferred a misfiled bankruptcy submission and administratively closed the new case.
The plaintiffs and the defendants named in the district-court action were affected by the transfer and administrative closure; the underlying claim dispute remained in the bankruptcy case.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Jenner & Block LLP, Jose Raul Ramirez, Glenda Ramirez, and Edgar Raul Ramirez, who were representing themselves, submitted a filing to the federal district court that appeared to belong in a related bankruptcy case. The filing used the bankruptcy case number and referred to a dispute over the Ramirezes’ bankruptcy claim.
The court ordered the Clerk to transfer the filing to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York for filing in the bankruptcy case. It also ordered the Clerk to cancel an earlier order requiring the plaintiffs to pay filing fees or request permission to proceed without paying them, and to administratively close the district-court case without prejudice to the pending bankruptcy action.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The order did not decide the underlying bankruptcy dispute.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Jenner & Block LLP · No. 1:21-cv-04674
- Laura Swain
- June 28, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs, proceeding without lawyers, submitted a document on May 24, 2021, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The document was labeled as a joint reply concerning an objection in the bankruptcy case In re Ditech Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10412 (JLG), in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. It used that bankruptcy case number, which was not the number of a case pending in the District Court. The District Court opened the submission as a new civil action and issued an order requiring the plaintiffs either to pay filing fees or to request permission to proceed without paying them.
Counsel for the Consumer Claims Trustee and Plan Administrator in the bankruptcy case informed the District Court that the filing appeared to have been submitted there by mistake. Counsel explained that the Plan Administrator had objected to a proof of claim filed by Jose and Glenda Ramirez, that the Ramirezes had responded, and that the filing was intended as a reply in that bankruptcy proceeding. Counsel asked the District Court to transfer the filing to the Bankruptcy Court and close the District Court case.
Court’s Action
The District Court concluded that the filing should not have been opened as a new action, based on the bankruptcy case number, the subject matter, the title of the submission, and other indications identified by counsel. The court directed the Clerk to transfer the filing to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to be docketed in the Ditech bankruptcy case. It also directed the Clerk to vacate the deficiency order and administratively close District Court case No. 21-CV-4674 without prejudice to the pending bankruptcy action.
The court further certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying bankruptcy dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.