Laneka Deoneida Lombrano

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM DIVISION
In re: 	)
)
Laneka Deoneida Lombrano, 	)
) 	Case No. 25-80241
) 	Chapter 13
Debtor. 	)
___________________________________)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO IMPOSE STAY
This 	case 	came 	before 	the 	Court 	for 	hearing 	on 	November 	5,
2025 	(“the 	Hearing”), 	on 	the 	document 	titled 	Urgent 	Motion 	to
Impose 	Stay, 	filed 	by 	Laneka 	Lombrano 	(“Debtor”), 	on 	October 	20,
2025. 	ECF 	No. 	7. 	Debtor 	is 	pro 	se, 	and 	did 	not 	appear 	at 	the
Hearing. 	In her Motion, Debtor requests that the court impose the
automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 	For the reasons stated
herein, Debtor’s Motion to Impose Stay is denied.
On 	May 	30, 	2025, 	Debtor 	filed 	her 	first 	voluntary 	petition
under chapter 7 title 11 in the Western District of North Carolina
Bankruptcy 	Court. 	Case 	No. 	25-30555, 	at 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	On 	June 	24,
2025, 	Debtor’s 	first 	case 	was 	dismissed 	due 	to 	her 	failure 	to
timely 	file 	a 	creditor 	matrix, 	and 	because 	Debtor’s 	petition
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 6th day of November, 2025.
Case 25-80241 Doc 23 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4

indicated 	that 	her 	residential 	address 	was 	located 	outside 	that
court’s jurisdiction. 	Id. at ECF No. 22. 	On June 30, 2025, Debtor
filed 	a 	second 	voluntary 	petition 	under 	chapter 	7 	of 	title 	11 	in
the Middle District of North Carolina Bankruptcy Court. 	Case No.
25-80144, 	at 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	On 	September 	5, 	2025, 	that 	case 	was
dismissed due to Debtor’s failure to pay the required filing fee.
Id. at ECF No. 44. 	On October 20, 2025, Debtor filed the current
case by voluntary petition under chapter 13 of title 11. 	Case No.
25-80241, 	at 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	That 	same 	day, 	Debtor 	filed 	her 	Urgent
Motion 	to 	Impose 	the 	Automatic 	Stay 	requesting 	that 	the 	stay 	be
reimposed 	under 	11 	U.S.C. 	362(a) 	because 	she 	is 	facing 	eviction
and requires immediate protection from creditors. 	ECF No. 7.
Ordinarily, 	the 	automatic 	stay 	arises 	upon 	the 	filing 	of 	a
petition, and “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities . .
. 	.” 	11 	U.S.C. 	§ 	362(a). 	However, 	when 	“two 	or 	more 	single 	or
joint 	cases 	of 	the 	debtor 	were 	pending 	within 	the 	previous 	year
but were dismissed, . . . the stay under subsection (a) shall not
go 	into 	effect 	upon 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	later 	case[.]” 	11 	U.S.C.§
362(c)(4)(A)(i). 	The 	debtor 	may 	still 	request 	the 	stay 	take
effect, if her request is made both within 30 days after the filing
of 	the 	later 	case 	and 	if, 	after 	notice 	and 	a 	hearing, 	the 	debtor
“demonstrates 	that 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	later 	case 	is 	in 	good 	faith
Case 25-80241 Doc 23 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4

. 	. 	.”, 	the 	stay 	may 	be 	imposed. 	Id. 	§ 	362(c)(4)(B).1 	Although
the 	stay 	may 	be 	imposed 	by 	order 	of 	the 	court, 	there 	is 	a
presumption 	that 	the 	debtor 	did 	not 	file 	in 	good 	faith 	under 	§
362(c)(4)(D)(i)(I), and the Debtor bears the evidentiary burden of
rebutting this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 	Id.
§ 	362(c)(4)(D); 	In 	re 	Jones, 	667 	B.R. 	310, 	312 	(Bankr. 	D.S.C.
2025).
Two 	bankruptcy 	cases, 	filed 	by 	the 	Debtor, 	were 	dismissed
within the past twelve months. 	Therefore, the automatic stay did
not arise upon the filing of this case, and this case presumptively
was 	filed 	in 	bad 	faith. 	See 	11 	U.S.C. 	§ 	362(c)(4)(A)(i),
(c)(4)(D)(i)(I). 	Debtor 	failed 	to 	appear 	at 	the 	Hearing 	and 	did
not 	present 	evidence 	to 	rebut 	that 	presumption 	by 	clear 	and
convincing 	evidence. 	Therefore, 	the 	Court 	will 	not 	impose 	the
stay and the motion will be denied.
Therefore, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	Debtor’s 	Motion 	to 	Impose
Automatic Stay is denied.
[END OF DOCUMENT]
1 In that case, the stay would become effective “on the date of the entry of
the order allowing the stay to go into effect.” 	11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(C). 	To
the extent that the Debtor’s request to impose the stay under § 362(a)is intended
to impose the stay retroactive to the filing of her Motion to Impose the stay,
that is denied. 	Section 362(c)(4)(C) bars the Court from ordering retroactive
relief in this case. 	See In re Ard, 669 B.R. 793, 797 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2025)
Case 25-80241 Doc 23 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4

Parties to be Served
25-80241
John Paul Hughes Cournoyer
U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator 	VIA CM/ECF
Anita Jo Kinlaw Troxler
Chapter 13 Trustee 	VIA CM/ECF
Laneka Deoneida Lombrano
119 Turney St
Raeford, NC 28376
Case 25-80241 Doc 23 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4