Gabriel David Guerrero and Olivia Luna Guerrero

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re:
Gabriel David Guerrero and
Olivia Luna Guerrero,
Debtor(s).
Case No.: 2:25-bk-14063-BB
CHAPTER 7
ORDER DENYING DEBTORS’ EMERGENCY
EX PARTE MOTION FOR (1) IMMEDIATE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
PROHIBITING ALL FORECLOSURE
ACTIVITY AND ENJOINING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE JOINT
STIPULATION BETWEEN CHAPTER 7
TRUSTEE, TIMOTHY YOO, AND
SUNFLOWER EQUITY, LLC; (2) ORDER
DECLARING THE SUNFLOWER EQUITY,
LLC LOAN ILLEGAL AND VOID UNDER
FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA LAW;
(3) RECONVERSION OF CASE FROM
CHAPTER 7 TO CHAPTER 11 PURSUANT
TO 11 U.S.C. SECTION 1112(d); AND
(4) ORDER GRANTING DEBTORS 30 DAYS
TO RETAIN NEW COUNSEL
(No hearing required)
//
//
FILED & ENTERED
JUN 15 2026
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	vandenst
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 8

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court, having reviewed and considered the Debtors’ “Emergency Ex Parte
Motion for (1) Immediate Temporary Restraining Order Prohibiting All Foreclosure
Activity and Enjoining Enforcement of the Joint Stipulation between Chapter 7 Trustee,
Timothy Yoo, and Sunflower Equity, LLC; (2) Order Declaring the Sunflower Equity, LLC
Loan Illegal and Void under Federal and California Law; (3) Reconversion of Case from
Chapter 7 to Chapter 11 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1112(d); and (4) Order Granting
Debtors 30 Days to Retain New Counsel” filed June 12, 2026 (Docket No. 159) (the
“Emergency Motion”), hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law:
1. The Emergency Motion seeks injunctive relief: a temporary restraining
order prohibiting all foreclosure activity. As the Court explained to debtor
Gabriel David Guerrero when he appeared at a hearing in an unrelated
matter on June 2, 2026, in order to obtain injunctive relief, a debtor must
first file an adversary proceeding and bring a motion for injunctive relief in
that proceeding and then make the appropriate showing. See In re Van
Ness, 399 B.R. 897 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2009) (“Rule 7001 mandates that an
injunction or other equitable relief be obtained by way of adversary
proceeding or plan confirmation, rather than by way of a “contested
matter” motion . . . . It is settled that a Rule 9014 motion cannot be used
to circumvent the requirement of an adversary proceeding”).
2. The debtors have not filed an adversary proceeding seeking injunctive
relief in this case. Therefore, any request for injunctive relief contained in
the Emergency Motion must necessarily be denied.
3. In addition, the Emergency Motion seeks a declaration that the Sunflower
Equity, LLC (“Sunflower”) loan is illegal and void. Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(b) and (i), the debtors must bring an
adversary proceeding to obtain this form of relief as well. Expeditors Int’l
v. Citicorp. N. Am. (In re Colortran), 218 B.R. 507 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1997)
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 8

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“Bankruptcy Rule 7001 (formerly rule 701) requires a bankruptcy trustee
to initiate adversary proceedings to ‘determine the validity, priority, or
extent of a lien or other interest in property.’ . . . In an analogous case,
under former Rule 701, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a lien
may be avoided only if the trustee has filed an adversary proceeding”)
(citing In re Commercial Western. Fin. Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1336 (9th
Cir. 1985)).
4. Once again, as the debtors have not commenced an adversary
proceeding, the Court would not be able to grant the requested relief even
if it were warranted on these facts. Moreover, this is not a form of relief
that could be obtained by filing an ex parte motion even in the context of
an adversary proceeding. Debtors would need to file a complaint, obtain
and serve a summons, give the lender an opportunity to respond to the
complaint and either prevail on the merits of their allegations after an
evidentiary hearing or bring and prevail on a motion for summary
judgment in which they demonstrated that no genuine issues of material
fact prevented the issuance of a summary adjudication in their favor.
5. The Emergency Motion argues further that the Court’s decision to grant
relief from stay was based on material misrepresentations contained in
Sunflower’s motion for relief from stay, which included, among other
things, an appraisal that deflated the value of the property, an invalid lien
asserted by the IRS that appeared to eliminate any equity in the property
and prejudicial information provided as to Mr. Guerrero’s unrelated guilty
plea. See Emergency Motion at pp. 4-7. This is entirely inaccurate, as a
review of the Court’s records and files in this bankruptcy case reflects.
None of these alleged misrepresentations led the Court to grant relief from
stay in this case.
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 8

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. The debtors filed this case on May 15, 2025. Sunflower first moved for
relief from stay with regard to the property that is the subject of the
Emergency Motion (the “Property”) on or about July 29, 2025. The Court
conducted the first hearing on that motion (the “Sunflower Motion”) on
August 19, 2025.
7. At the August 19, 2025 hearing, the Court refused to grant the Sunflower
Motion, stating, “Court is not yet ready to conclude that there is no realistic
prospect of a reorganization within a reasonable period and, if the debtor’s
representations are true with regard to the origins of the tax lien, there
may in fact be substantial equity for the estate in the property.” The Court
therefore continued the hearing on the Sunflower Motion to October 8,
2025.
8. At the October 8, 2025, hearing on the Sunflower Motion, the Court asked
the debtor what, if any, additional progress had been made in negotiations
with the IRS in an effort to cause the IRS to reduce the amount of its
claim? Debtors’ counsel reported that the debtor was trying to find
financing and requested a further continuance of the hearing on the
Sunflower Motion. The Court granted that request and continued the
hearing on the Sunflower Motion to December 11, 2025, but instructed the
debtors that, in order to preserve the value of Sunflower’s collateral, they
would need to pay the real property taxes that become delinquent on
December 10, 2025, or the Court would grant relief from stay at the
continued hearing.
9. At the December 11, 2025 hearing on the Sunflower Motion, the Court
offered the following tentative ruling:
a. At prior hearing, debtor's counsel reported that recent appraisal
showed there was not enough value in the property to satisfy the
liens against it and produce equity for the estate. The status report
that the debtor filed in connection with matter no. 6 [the case
management conference] shows the same thing. Debtor notes that
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 8

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the IRS failed to file a proof of claim, but it also states that the IRS
has a secured tax LIEN for more than $4.2M. According to that
same report, the value of the property is approximately $4.3M and
the senior lien is for approximately $2.5M. Thus, there is no equity
in the property. Debtor has been trying to refinance, but does not
appear to have made any progress and the Court takes judicial
notice of the positions advanced by the IRS in response to the
defendant's sentencing memorandum. It does not appear likely
that the IRS will be reducing the amount of its claim at any point in
the near future.
b. Grant motion for relief under section 362(d)(2). Court is persuaded
that there is no reasonable likelihood of a reorganization within a
reasonable period and that there is no equity in the property for the
estate.
10. However, notwithstanding the foregoing tentative ruling, the Court did not
grant Sunflower relief from stay at that hearing. Instead, based on the fact
that the IRS had filed a proof of claim on December 9 or 10 in which it
referred to its claim as being “unsecured,” the Court continued the hearing
on the Sunflower Motion to January 20, 2026.
11. At the January 20, 2026, hearing on the Sunflower Motion, the Court
raised the following question in its tentative ruling, “In light of [the IRS’s]
amended proof of claim, is debtor now in a position to file a plan or does
debtor intend to proceed in a different manner? If debtor intends to file a
plan, set deadline for filing of plan and disclosure statement and continue
hearing on motion for relief from stay to date and time of hearing on
disclosure statement.”
12. Counsel for the debtors advised that they did indeed intend to file a plan
and disclosure statement. The Court therefore set a deadline of February
17, 2026 for the debtors to file a plan and disclosure statement and said
that it would issue an order to show cause re conversion or appointment of
a chapter 11 trustee and set a hearing on that order to show cause (the
“OSC”) for February 24, 2026. And, in the interim, the Court again
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 5 of 8

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
continued the hearing on the Sunflower Motion, this time to February 24,
2026.
13. At the February 24, 2026 hearing on the OSC, the Court offered the
following tentative ruling:
a. At the January 20, 2026 hearing on Sunflower's motion for relief
from stay, the debtors made all of the same representations that
are set forth in their reply to the OSC (filed February 11, 2026).
The only new information is that Mr. Guerrero has accepted an
offer from the government to drop all evasion charges in exchange
for his acceptance of a lesser charge of an overt act. At that time,
the Court instructed the debtors to file a plan and disclosure
statement by February 17, 2026 . . . .
b. Mr. Guerrero may be making progress with regard to his criminal
sentencing, but he has not shown any meaningful progress in this
chapter 11 case. He still has the looming issue of the $4.2M tax
claim that he claims prevents him from refinancing. It should not
prevent him from proceeding with a sale free and clear and it
should not stand in the way of his proposing a plan, yet he has
done neither.
c. Convert case to chapter 7. Perhaps a chapter 7 trustee, who isn't
distracted by sentencing issues, can get this case moving forward.
14. Following the February 24, 2026 hearing on the OSC, the Court did in fact
convert the case to chapter 7, but it still did not grant relief from the
automatic stay. Instead, the Court again continued the hearing on the
Sunflower Motion (to March 31, 2026), to give the trustee an opportunity to
evaluate whether he wanted to proceed with a sale of the property or to
abandon the property.
15. At the March 31, 2026 hearing on the Sunflower Motion, the trustee
requested additional time to evaluate how he wanted to proceed, and the
Court again continued the hearing on the Sunflower Motion -- this time to
May 5, 2026. However, the Court eventually took the May 5 hearing on
the Sunflower Motion off calendar because, on April 22, 2026, the Court
approved a stipulation between the trustee and Sunflower that gave
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 8

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sunflower relief from the automatic stay but prohibited Sunflower from
proceeding with a foreclosure for 60 additional days to give the trustee a
further opportunity to attempt to enter into an escrow to sell the Property
for an amount sufficient to pay off Sunflower in full.
16. In other words, none of the alleged misrepresentations contained in the
Sunflower Motion led the Court to grant relief from stay with regard to the
Property improvidently. The Court gave first the debtors and then the
trustee more than ample opportunity to take steps to avoid a foreclosure,
and it was only after the trustee entered into a stipulation with Sunflower
for relief from stay– almost 9 months after the Sunflower Motion was
originally filed and more than 11 months after the bankruptcy case was
originally filed -- that the Court granted such relief.
17. To the extent that the Emergency Motion seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s decision to convert the case to chapter 7, the Emergency Motion
must be denied. The debtors had more than ample opportunity to move
forward with a plan of reorganization, a sale of the Property or a
refinancing, but failed to proceed diligently to pursue any of these options.
18. The Motion also seeks an order granting the debtors 30 days to retain new
counsel. It is unclear what relief the debtors are seeking by way of this
request or why they believe they need this Court’s permission to retain
counsel.
19. On April 16, 2026, the debtors’ chapter 11 counsel, Thomas Ure, filed a
motion to withdraw. According to that motion, the engagement letter
between Mr. Ure and the debtors provided for his employment to
terminate automatically if and when the case was converted to chapter 7.
The motion therefore sought an order relieving Mr. Ure as counsel for the
debtors effective April 1, 2026, as this was the date of the conversion.
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 7 of 8

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20. To ensure that debtors had an adequate opportunity to obtain replacement
counsel, the Court set Mr. Ure’s motion to withdraw for hearing on May 13,
2026. Following that hearing, by order entered May 19, 2026 (docket no.
148), the Court granted Mr. Ure’s motion to withdraw effective as of the
date his motion to withdraw was filed – April 16, 2026.
21. Approximately two months have passed since Mr. Ure ceased to be
debtors’ counsel and the debtors have yet to retain a replacement. The
debtors do not need an order from this Court to enable them to hire new
counsel. If they would like to retain new counsel, they should do so. The
debtors can retain replacement counsel at any time, but the Court will not
prevent any other party from moving forward or exercising any of its rights
or remedies while they do so.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Emergency Motion is
denied in its entirety.
###
Date: June 15, 2026
Case 2:25-bk-14063-BB Doc 162 Filed 06/15/26 Entered 06/15/26 18:37:38 Desc
Main Document Page 8 of 8