[00:00:00] Speaker 04: Thank you both for your interest. [00:00:02] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:00:04] Speaker 04: Madam Clerk, can we call the next matter, please? [00:00:08] Speaker 01: Inray von Niech, Elena von Niech, appearing pro se. [00:00:12] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:00:15] Speaker 04: Good morning, Ms. [00:00:16] Speaker 04: Niech. [00:00:17] Speaker 04: You have 15 minutes. [00:00:18] Speaker 04: Because there's no other party appearing, there's really no reason for any reply. [00:00:22] Speaker 04: So we'll let you go ahead and make your presentation. [00:00:24] Speaker 00: OK, thank you very much. [00:00:26] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:28] Speaker 00: Well, I feel like the matter is sufficiently briefed. [00:00:32] Speaker 00: And I just want to clarify a few things in the short statement, rather. [00:00:42] Speaker 00: So the bankruptcy court granted stay relief and retroactive annulment based on incorrect legal premises and undisputed factual errors. [00:00:53] Speaker 00: The first one would be that the state court action is an asset of the estate under 541 until the case closes. [00:01:03] Speaker 00: Yet the court treated it as if the same never applied. [00:01:09] Speaker 00: Contrary to 362A paragraph 3. [00:01:13] Speaker 00: The second, annulment was granted solely on creditors' allegations of a bad faith without findings, without evidence, and without applying the Ninth Circuit mandatory fel state factors. [00:01:28] Speaker 00: I believe it's 12 of them. [00:01:30] Speaker 00: And the third would be that the bond order, that it is a scheduled repetition claim to discharge and automatically [00:01:39] Speaker 00: stayed under the 362A1 and paragraph six. [00:01:45] Speaker 00: So I do respectfully ask the panel to reverse the annulment and stay relief order because of the court failed to apply controlling law, failed to make required findings, and relied clearly on erroneous factual assumptions. [00:02:04] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:02:04] Speaker 03: Vanich. [00:02:05] Speaker 00: Yep. [00:02:06] Speaker 03: Has your state court action been dismissed? [00:02:10] Speaker 00: No, I have a motion pending, yes. [00:02:14] Speaker 03: Okay, so the action is still pending? [00:02:16] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:02:17] Speaker 00: Okay, thank you. [00:02:18] Speaker 00: We're set for trial, yeah. [00:02:21] Speaker 04: And ma'am, you want to go forward with litigation, correct? [00:02:25] Speaker 00: Yes, we set the trial in April of 2026, yes. [00:02:28] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:02:32] Speaker 00: The, if I may, [00:02:35] Speaker 00: The cost bond was ordered based on, as you may be of course aware, based on two things, that I am not the California resident and based on the fact that the opposing council may likely prevail. [00:02:52] Speaker 00: Well, the first one is incorrect because I am a California resident and at the time of filing the bankruptcy, the trustee was the one who this estate belonged to. [00:03:05] Speaker 03: Did you appeal the decision, the state court's decision that you were not a California resident? [00:03:14] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:03:14] Speaker 00: Yes, I did. [00:03:15] Speaker 00: I presented all the paperwork, the taxes that have been filed for the past seven years. [00:03:24] Speaker 03: I know you did that. [00:03:25] Speaker 03: You did that before the court concluded that you were not a California resident. [00:03:32] Speaker 03: Once the court entered an order saying, [00:03:35] Speaker 03: that you're not a California resident. [00:03:37] Speaker 03: Did you appeal that order? [00:03:39] Speaker 00: 1030 is not applicable, I guess the word that I would use. [00:03:54] Speaker 00: Sorry, what I'm trying to say is, [00:03:57] Speaker 00: The opposing counsel is not likely to prevail in trial because their MSJ got defeated by me, the plaintiff. [00:04:09] Speaker 00: And in order for a 1030 bond to be adjudicated, both of those things have to be met. [00:04:25] Speaker 00: Guess what I'm trying to say is continuing to litigate [00:04:28] Speaker 00: constitutes 1030 waiver, and the judge did not go ahead and dismiss the case. [00:04:36] Speaker 00: We set for trial of April 2026. [00:04:39] Speaker 03: So the trial court in California is going to let you proceed without posting a bond? [00:04:49] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:05:01] Speaker 04: Are you asking for an appeal, Ms. [00:05:05] Speaker 04: Juanich? [00:05:06] Speaker 00: Well, I'm asking, sorry. [00:05:08] Speaker 04: No, because it seems like there's no stay now. [00:05:11] Speaker 04: You're going to proceed, so that litigation is going to take its course. [00:05:15] Speaker 04: If you're opposing counsel, even if we were to find that there was a violation of the stay, all that means essentially is that the motion to dismiss goes away, right, and then is refiled. [00:05:28] Speaker 00: Well, we're looking for 1030 bond claim to not be annulled. [00:05:36] Speaker 04: But that's not before us. [00:05:39] Speaker 04: The only thing before us is the violation of relief from stay, which was the filing of the motion to dismiss. [00:05:46] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:05:47] Speaker 00: I'm looking for a retroactive annulment. [00:05:50] Speaker 04: But even if we agree with you retroactive annulment was wrong, all it's going to do is wipe away the motion to dismiss. [00:06:00] Speaker 04: So if you proceed going forward, council can still bring that motion again and seek a bond. [00:06:08] Speaker 00: That's fine. [00:06:09] Speaker 00: They could try to do that. [00:06:11] Speaker 00: But as of right now, [00:06:14] Speaker 00: The Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that the contingent on liquidated claim is a debt and the claim is a right to payment. [00:06:21] Speaker 00: And the novelty of this particular issue is whether a cause bond in a state court that was due three days after the chapter seven bankruptcy petition was filed is collectible. [00:06:34] Speaker 00: And if the state of California overrides the federal protection for present and future debtors. [00:06:39] Speaker 03: I'm a little confused. [00:06:42] Speaker 03: Oh, go ahead, Judge. [00:06:43] Speaker 02: No, go ahead. [00:06:44] Speaker 02: Go ahead, Judge Corbett. [00:06:46] Speaker 03: I'm trying to figure out how that's even relevant, how there's a dispute here, is that if you're granted relief from this court that there should have been no retroactive relief from stay. [00:07:04] Speaker 03: There's still relief from stay to go ahead with the loss, you know, go ahead, because [00:07:09] Speaker 03: there is no state because you've been granted a discharge. [00:07:13] Speaker 03: And you've already told us that you're going to go to trial. [00:07:16] Speaker 03: Your answer to my question was yes, that the trial court is going to let you proceed without posting a bond. [00:07:23] Speaker 03: So if you can go ahead with your trial, I'm not sure what additional relief we can afford you. [00:07:39] Speaker 00: Technically, the state is moot, but retroactive annulment is not. [00:07:46] Speaker 00: I understand that. [00:07:49] Speaker 03: But let's say, what does reversing the retroactive annulment give you? [00:07:58] Speaker 03: You're still going to be able to proceed with your lawsuit. [00:08:01] Speaker 03: You said you can proceed without posting a bond. [00:08:03] Speaker 03: So how does the retroactive annulment [00:08:08] Speaker 03: affect your case in any way? [00:08:10] Speaker 00: There is no order to dismiss it, so the court did not dismiss it yet, and the motion to dismiss is still pending. [00:08:19] Speaker 00: So if I don't pass the bond effectively, they might dismiss the entire case. [00:08:24] Speaker 00: That means that they're trying to collect the debt that was the prepetition debt and was discharged. [00:08:31] Speaker 03: Okay, two things here. [00:08:33] Speaker 03: Okay, I see your argument, you know, debts that can be discharged are the debts that appear [00:08:38] Speaker 03: In our incurred pre petition. [00:08:42] Speaker 03: OK, if the defendants brought a new motion for a bond. [00:08:48] Speaker 03: That only covered. [00:08:50] Speaker 03: Post petition. [00:08:53] Speaker 03: Items. [00:08:54] Speaker 03: What would prevent them from doing that? [00:08:56] Speaker 00: Well, nothing that could do that, but motion has not been heard for dismissal and the court did not rule on it yet, so they're awaiting for decision from this battlefield. [00:09:11] Speaker 02: So if I understand correctly, the motion to dismiss that was filed in April of this year is still pending before the state court. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: They haven't made a decision on it. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:09:32] Speaker 04: Why do you believe that you could go forward without posting any further bond in the state court action? [00:09:38] Speaker 00: Because I defeated the MSJ and another bond is most likely not going to happen because they have no reason for it. [00:09:48] Speaker 03: So that argument would apply even if they brought a post discharge motion for a bond? [00:10:01] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:10:06] Speaker 04: Is that matter before the state court? [00:10:09] Speaker 04: Have you raised that argument? [00:10:11] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:10:11] Speaker 04: To the state court? [00:10:13] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:10:13] Speaker 04: Did it reject it or is it pending? [00:10:17] Speaker 00: It's awaiting for, sorry, not it's, they are, the court is awaiting for the decision from this battle. [00:10:28] Speaker 04: The summary judgment decision, did that happen before or after the order on the, opposed to bond? [00:10:35] Speaker 00: After. [00:10:36] Speaker 00: Yeah, it was after. [00:10:37] Speaker 04: So the summary judgment decision came after you were ordered to post the bond, but before the bankruptcy? [00:10:50] Speaker 00: No. [00:10:50] Speaker 00: It was after to post the bond. [00:10:57] Speaker 02: When was the motion for summary judgment filed and heard? [00:11:02] Speaker 00: I believe it was, let me take a look, April 28th. [00:11:12] Speaker 03: So that motion was filed by the defendants on April 28th. [00:11:17] Speaker 00: It was filed on the 30th, sorry, but it was heard on the 28th. [00:11:22] Speaker 03: It was filed on what date? [00:11:24] Speaker 00: January 30th. [00:11:25] Speaker 00: and it was heard on the April 28th and yeah, after the bankruptcy. [00:11:42] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:11:42] Speaker 03: Vanej. [00:11:43] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:11:44] Speaker 03: In your litigation with the defendants, has there been [00:11:51] Speaker 03: Any argument that the bond? [00:11:57] Speaker 03: The. [00:11:58] Speaker 03: The defendants are asking for whether that bond. [00:12:03] Speaker 03: Will or will not cover pre petitioned? [00:12:08] Speaker 00: Yes, a bond was petitioned and enlisted. [00:12:13] Speaker 00: Bond was part of the petition. [00:12:15] Speaker 03: OK, but the bond could cover. [00:12:18] Speaker 03: litigation expenses, either pre-petition or post-petition. [00:12:22] Speaker 03: Has anybody asserted that the bond will cover expenses that were incurred before you file for bankruptcy? [00:12:30] Speaker 00: Well, yes, they are a pre-petition. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: And yes, they were listed. [00:12:38] Speaker 00: They are a pre-petition. [00:12:46] Speaker 04: All right. [00:12:46] Speaker 04: Anything else, Ms. [00:12:46] Speaker 04: Vonage? [00:12:48] Speaker 00: No, as I was just saying that I respectfully ask the panel to reverse the annulment and the state relief order because of the court's failure to apply the controlling law. [00:13:00] Speaker 04: All right. [00:13:01] Speaker 04: Any other questions? [00:13:04] Speaker 04: No. [00:13:05] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:13:06] Speaker 04: I'll include your argument. [00:13:07] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:13:08] Speaker 04: We'll try to get a decision as quick as possible. [00:13:11] Speaker 04: The matter will be deemed submitted. [00:13:12] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: Thank you very much. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:13:16] Speaker 04: Madam Clerk, could you call the next case, please?