Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. On April 3, 2014, the undersigned set aside the entry of default in this case noting: The complaint in this case was filed on December 17, 2013, and alleges a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. , which allegedly occurred in May of 2012. (Doc. 1 at 2-4). The Confirmation Order issued by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2012, contains an injunction prohibiting "all Persons who have held, hold, or
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. On April 3, 2014, the undersigned set aside the entry of default in this case noting: The complaint in this case was filed on December 17, 2013, and alleges a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. , which allegedly occurred in May of 2012. (Doc. 1 at 2-4). The Confirmation Order issued by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2012, contains an injunction prohibiting "all Persons who have held, hold, or ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.
On April 3, 2014, the undersigned set aside the entry of default in this case noting:
The complaint in this case was filed on December 17, 2013, and alleges a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., which allegedly occurred in May of 2012. (Doc. 1 at 2-4). The Confirmation Order issued by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2012, contains an injunction prohibiting "all Persons who have held, hold, or may hold Claims against or interests in [Liquidation]1 . . . from. . . commencing . . . any action or other proceeding of any kind against [Liquidation] with respect to any such Claim or Interest." (Doc. 18-1 at 31). Thus, it appears as if the plaintiff's claim is barred by the injunction.
Further, Harding stated in his declaration that the plaintiff has not filed any claims against the estate. (Doc. 19-1 at 3). Accordingly it appears that the plaintiff's claim may be administratively barred as well.
. . .
[T]he plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, within 7 days, why this case should not be dismissed as administratively barred, and/or enjoined by the bankruptcy court.
(Doc. 22 at 11-12). The time for responding to this court's order has now expired and no response has been filed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has failed to show why her case should not be dismissed as being filed in violation of the injunction issued by the bankruptcy court, and/or because she did not file a proof of claim2 with the bankruptcy court. Under the circumstances, the court determines that this case should be DISMISSED without prejudice. Any party may reopen the case, upon good cause shown, to address any issue not resolved by the bankruptcy court, and which is not barred by, or barred as a result of, the proceedings in the bankruptcy court. A separate order will be entered.
