MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FILED BY GLENN DECKMAN

[RELATES TO DOC. NO. 49]

[No hearing required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(j)(3)]

ERNEST M. ROBLES, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Court has reviewed an untitled document filed in pro se by Glenn Deckman ("Deckman"). Consistent with its "obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro se litigants," Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court construes the document as a motion to impose sanctions against the Debtors (the "Motion") [Doc. No. 49]. Pursuant to Civil Rule 78(b) and LBR 9013-1(j)(3),1 the Court finds this matter to be suitable for disposition without oral argument.2 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.

I. Facts and Summary of Pleadings

Michael Alan Bark and Dena Rae Bark (the "Debtors") filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition on April 30, 2012. The Debtors received a discharge on September 21, 2012. The Debtors' case was reopened on August 8, 2018, to permit the filing of a lien avoidance motion. The case was reclosed on March 18, 2019.

In the Motion, Deckman alleges that the Debtors' son defrauded Deckman's son by selling him a defective iPhone. Deckman asserts that his son sustained damages in the amount of $230 in connection with the sale. Deckman does not seek a monetary recovery. He seeks the following relief:

Motion at 1.

II. Findings and Conclusions

As a result of the closing on the case on March 18, 2019, the Court has been divested of jurisdiction. Deckman has not filed a motion seeking to reopen the Debtors' case. That alone is cause for denying the Motion.

Even if Deckman had obtained an order reopening the case, the Court would still be required to deny the Motion for numerous reasons. First, the Motion was not served upon the Debtors, in violation of LBR 9013-1(c)(2). Second, the Motion does not state the relief requested with the necessary specificity. Under Bankruptcy Rule 9013, a motion "shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." Here, the Motion requests that the Court impose upon the Debtors some type of unspecified financial responsibility in their future dealings with others. It is not possible for the Court to adjudicate a Motion that fails to articulate a request for specific relief.

Finally, and most significant, the underlying premise of the Motion is incorrect as a matter of law. The Motion asserts that in exchange for receiving a discharge, the Debtors should be obligated to comply with "some rules . . . going forward which at minimum should be fiscal responsibility of some sort." Motion at 1. Section 727(a) specifies the circumstances under which debtors are entitled to receive a discharge. Nothing within § 727(a) imposes ongoing obligations upon debtors in exchange for a discharge, or provides the Court with jurisdiction over closed bankruptcy cases to police debtors' post-discharge behavior.

Based upon the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED. The Court will enter an order consistent with this Memorandum of Decision.