Davis et al v. Gresham et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-871-G
)
DANIEL ROBERT GRESHAM, )
)
Defendant/Judgment Debtor, )
)
and )
)
THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Garnishee, )
)
and )
)
DOUGLAS N. GOULD, trustee of the )
bankruptcy estate of Daniel Robert )
Gresham, Case No. BK-21-13349 )
(Bankr. W.D. Okla.), )
)
Intervenor Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 30) filed by
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Christopher John Davis (“Plaintiff”). No other party has
responded to Plaintiff’s Motion.
Case 5:22-cv-00871-G Document 35 Filed 09/12/25 Page 1 of 5

2
I. Background
This action stems from a personal injury lawsuit filed in Oklahoma state court by
Plaintiff against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Daniel Robert Gresham (“Gresham”). On
September 1, 2021, a jury found Gresham liable for money damages, and judgment was
entered for Plaintiff two weeks later.
On December 30, 2021, Gresham filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the “Bankruptcy Court”), thereby
triggering the automatic stay on collections. See In re Gresham, No. 21-13349 (Bankr.
W.D. Okla.). On July 22, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the automatic stay for the
limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to seek recovery from Gresham’s liability insurer.
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff initiated a garnishment proceeding in Oklahoma
state court by filing, in the state-court lawsuit, a garnishment affidavit that identified
Gresham as the judgment debtor, Gresham’s insurer The Standard Fire Insurance Company
(“Standard Fire”) as the garnishee, and the total debt as $3,308,302.75. See Garn. Aff.
(Doc. No. 1-2, at 11-12) at 11. Standard Fire answered and claimed, among other things,
that Gresham was not indemnified under the relevant policy.
The Bankruptcy Trustee for Gresham’s bankruptcy estate then moved to intervene
to assert claims against Standard Fire. On September 23, 2022, the state court granted the
Bankruptcy Trustee’s unopposed motion to intervene. The Bankruptcy Trustee, as
Intervenor Plaintiff, then pleaded claims of breach of contract and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing against Standard Fire.
Case 5:22-cv-00871-G Document 35 Filed 09/12/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Standard Fire removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction
and filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) the claims brought by the Bankruptcy Trustee.
On August 21, 2024, the Court denied the Bankruptcy Trustee’s request for remand. See
Order of Aug. 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 26).
On September 30, 2024, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s garnishment claims and
Standard Fire’s Motion to Dismiss be stayed and held in abeyance pending further order
of the Court. See Order of Sept. 30, 2024 (Doc. No. 27).
II. The Status Conference and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
The Court conducted a status conference on October 18, 2024, with counsel for the
parties in attendance. See Doc. No. 34. A subject discussed was the accuracy of the finding
in the Court’s Orders of August 21, 2024, and September 30, 2024, that “[o]n April 22,
2022, the Bankruptcy Court discharged Gresham’s judgment debt.” Order of Aug. 21,
2024, at 2; see also id. at 6 n.3, 8; Order of Sept. 30, 2024, at 2. The Court instructed
Plaintiff and the Bankruptcy Trustee that they may file any motions to reconsider the
Court’s prior denial of remand within 14 days.
Plaintiff then timely filed the instant Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 30). The
Bankruptcy Trustee has adopted the arguments made by Plaintiff therein. See Bankr. Tr.’s
Suppl. Br. (Doc. No. 32) at 3. Standard Fire did not respond to the Motion to Reconsider
but addressed the issue of the discharge of Gresham’s judgment debt in a Supplemental
Brief (Doc. No. 33). See id. at 7-13.
The parties strenuously disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Court has
discharged—i.e., released Gresham from personal liability as to—the judgment debt
Case 5:22-cv-00871-G Document 35 Filed 09/12/25 Page 3 of 5

4
entered in Plaintiff’s favor in the underlying state-court action. Plaintiff and the
Bankruptcy Trustee argue that the Court erred in so finding. They argue that this specific
debt has not been discharged, noting that Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding in the
Bankruptcy Court to object that the debt was not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
523(a)(9). See Pl.’s Mot. to Reconsider at 3-5; Davis v. Gresham, Adv. No. 22-01024
(Bankr. W.D. Okla.); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(f). Standard Fire responds that,
pursuant to the relevant authorities, the Bankruptcy Court’s general discharge of
Gresham’s debts included a discharge of the judgment debt. See Standard Fire’s Suppl.
Br. at 7-13 (“[T]he Court made no error. Gresham’s debt to Davis is discharged.”).
The Court concludes that there is a genuine dispute in this case as to the current
status of the judgment debt.1 Significantly, however, there has been no contention or
showing that this status is material to the dispositions made in the Court’s Orders of August
21, 2024, and September 30, 2024, or that the Court must make a finding as to whether the
judgment debt has been discharged in order to proceed with the claims raised by the parties
herein. See Pl.’s Mot. to Reconsider at 9; Bankr. Tr.’s Suppl. Br. at 3.
Accordingly, the Court was and is not required to reach the issue of whether
Gresham’s judgment debt has been discharged for bankruptcy purposes. The Court
concurs with Plaintiff that superseding amended orders should be issued to avoid any
confusion or prejudice from the Court’s previous finding in the affirmative.
1 The publicly available Bankruptcy Court dockets reflect that the adversary proceeding is
being held in abeyance, such that no determination of the dischargeability of the judgment
debt has yet been made by that court. See Davis, Order of Nov. 30, 2022 (Doc. No. 21).
Case 5:22-cv-00871-G Document 35 Filed 09/12/25 Page 4 of 5

5
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 30) is
GRANTED.
The Court hereby WITHDRAWS AND VACATES its finding that “[o]n April 22,
2022, the Bankruptcy Court discharged Gresham’s judgment debt.” Order of Aug. 21,
2024, at 2, 6 n.3, 8; Order of Sept. 30, 2024, at 2. The Court shall issue superseding
amended orders consistent with this disposition.
The Clerk of Court is directed to VACATE the Court’s Orders of August 21, 2024
(Doc. No. 26) and September 30, 2024 (Doc. No. 27) and to update the case docket
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2025.
Case 5:22-cv-00871-G Document 35 Filed 09/12/25 Page 5 of 5