Jonathan D. Oswalt v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11540
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 3:14-cv-00956-WKW,
3:14-cv-00968-WKW-SRW
JONATHAN D. OSWALT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00968-WKW
JONATHAN D. OSWALT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Case: 15-11540 Date Filed: 12/09/2015 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(December 9, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Oswalt, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his employment discrimination claims against BellSouth Telecommunications,
LLC (“BellSouth”) and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
(“Sedgwick”). The district court dismissed Oswalt’s employment discrimination
claim because, after he filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the bankruptcy
trustee was the only person with standing to prosecute Oswalt’s claims. On appeal,
Oswalt argues that he regained prudential standing when he re-opened his
bankruptcy case to properly list his lawsuit against BellSouth and Sedgwick. After
careful review, we affirm.
Standing “is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court.” Alabama
v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 871 F.2d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir. 1989).
We review standing determinations de novo. Tanner Advert. Group, L.L.C. v.
Fayette County, 451 F.3d 777, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Pro se appellants are afforded
a liberal construction of their pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
Case: 15-11540 Date Filed: 12/09/2015 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, issues not raised by pro se appellants in
their pleadings are considered abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008).
The start of a bankruptcy case creates an estate made up of nearly all of the
debtor’s assets. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). According to the Bankruptcy Code, the
estate includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the
commencement of the case.” Id. Causes of action belonging to a debtor at the
initiation of bankruptcy become part of the bankruptcy estate. Parker v. Wendy’s
Int’l., Inc., 365 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004); Barger v. City of Cartersville,
348 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003). After the cause of action becomes part of
the bankruptcy estate, the trustee, as the representative of the estate, becomes the
only party with standing to bring that cause of action. Parker, 365 F.3d at 1272;
Barger, 348 F.3d at 1292-93. The rights of the debtor to the cause of action are
therefore eliminated, unless the trustee abandons the property in accordance with
11 U.S.C. § 554. Parker, 365 F.3d at 1272. When property is not administered and
not abandoned according to § 554, then it remains in the estate unless it falls under
§ 521(a)(2). 11 U.S.C. §§ 554(c)-(d); see also 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1). However,
when a debtor does not list their interest in a cause of action on the bankruptcy
schedule, the cause of action remains in the bankruptcy estate after the estate is
discharged. Parker, 365 F.3d at 1272.
Case: 15-11540 Date Filed: 12/09/2015 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In this case, Oswalt’s claims against BellSouth and Sedgwick became a part
of Oswalt’s bankruptcy estate when he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. See id.
Once the claim became part of the bankruptcy estate, the trustee became the sole
person with standing to bring the claim. See id.; Barger, 348 F.3d at 1292-93.
Since the trustee never abandoned the cause of action, and Oswalt failed to
properly disclose the cause of action to the bankruptcy court, the cause of action is
still property of the bankruptcy estate and the trustee is the only party with
standing to bring the cause of action. See Parker, 365 F.3d at 1272. Oswalt’s
petition to re-open his bankruptcy case and amend his list of assets to properly
include the lawsuit, in and of itself, does not remedy Oswalt’s lack of standing. A
trustee, should the bankruptcy court appoint one, would have standing and would
have the right to sue Sedgwick and BellSouth, but Oswalt does not. See Barger,
365 F.3d at 1292-93. Further, any claim that Oswalt may have standing for his
equitable relief claims -- separate from his standing for his rest of his claims -- was
abandoned when Oswalt failed to raise it in his appellate brief. See Barger, 348
F.3d 1297; Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11540 Date Filed: 12/09/2015 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --