NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER REOPENING DEBTOR'S CHAPTER 7 CASE SUA SPONTE

ROBERT KWAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

On September 13, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., a hearing in the adversary proceeding entitled Gary Salzman v. Gary E. Moll, Gary E. Moll and Associates, Adversary Case No. 16-ap-01057-RK, on Defendant Gary E. Moll's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss the first amended complaint of Plaintiff Gary Salzman ("Plaintiff") came before the undersigned United States Bankruptcy Judge, which is an adversary proceeding related to Debtor's main bankruptcy case with the above-captioned case number. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf; and Defendant appeared on his own behalf, at this hearing.

At the September 13, 2016 hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the adversary proceeding, Plaintiff informed the court that he planned to pursue the underlying state law claims asserted in his first amended complaint against Defendant, including, but not limited to, his legal malpractice, negligence and personal injury claims asserted against Defendant, in the state court rather than in the federal district court, and planned to move this court to reopen the closed bankruptcy case of Defendant to pursue his state law claims in the state court while Plaintiff's debt dischargeability claims will remain before this court in the adversary proceeding. Severance of Plaintiff's state law personal injury claims from his debt dischargeability claims was required here because the bankruptcy court does not have authority to determine the personal injury claims in the adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) without Defendant's consent, which was not given here. Defendant stated, however, at the hearing that he did not oppose the reopening of his closed bankruptcy case for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to seek stay relief to pursue his state law claims in state court.

Plaintiff filed his adversary proceeding on February 5, 2016 before the underlying bankruptcy case was closed on March 29, 2016. Because Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant and needs ancillary relief in the main bankruptcy case for claims related to his adversary proceeding, Defendant does not oppose the reopening of his above-captioned Chapter 7 bankruptcy case for this purpose, and to facilitate litigation of the claims in the adversary proceeding which were pending before the bankruptcy case was closed, which may have been premature in light of the pendency of Plaintiff's adversary proceeding, the court, on its own motion, reopens Defendant's above-captioned Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 350(b) for "other cause" to permit Plaintiff to file and serve a motion for relief from the stay to allow him to pursue his state law claims before the state court. See 4 March, Ahart and Shapiro, California Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, ¶ 23:198 at 23-25 (2015), citing In re Mulendor, 741 F.3d 306, 308 (10th Cir. 1984) and In re Weinstein, 164 F.3d 677, 686 n.7 (1st Cir. 1999) (the court may reopen on its own motion); see also, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(b)(case may be reopened without payment of an additional filing fee for the purpose of filing a complaint to obtain a determination of debt dischargeability under this rule).

IT IS SO ORDERED.