MORALES GARCIA et al v. COLOM GARCIA et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case:15-00102-ESL Doc#:70 Filed:05/09/06 Entered:05/09/06 15:48:35 Desc: Main

“a WN WA FB wb

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Document Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE:

ELISEO MORALES GARCIA Case No. 04-12461 (ESL)
MARIBEL MENA MELENDEZ,
Chapter 11
Debtor(s).

ELISEO MORALES GARCIA Adversary Proceeding No. 05-00102
MARIBEL MENA MELENDEZ,

Plaintiffs),
v.

HON. LUISA M. COLOM GARCIA,
SUPERIOR JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF PUERTO RICO, SUPERIOR
COURT OF BAYAMON; JOHN DOE 1
THROUGH 100,

Defendant(s).

OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court upon the motion to dismiss filed by codefendant Hon. Luisa M.
Colom Garcia on the grounds of judicial immunity, and plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, alleging that
the judge’s actions were taken in complete absence of jurisdiction, and, thus, the doctrine of judicial
immunity is inapplicable. Plaintiffs’ position is that actions in violation of the automatic stay are
null and void. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted.

At the outset, the court notes that in the original complaint the plaintiffs made similar

allegations against Judge Colom.' However, during the hearing held on May 23, 2005, the plaintiffs

} See Complaint (Docket No. 1):

31. In refusing to declare the public auction null and void, Judge Colém is in
fact taking away Debtors’ control over property of their estate. Said action or
inaction, with knowledge of the filing of Debtors’ Chapter 11 petition, is a willful

Case:{)5-00102-ESL Doc#:70 Filed:05/09/06 Entered:05/09/06 15:48:35 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 3
1 || indicated that they would not pursue any allegations against Judge Colom, thus, making any claim
for violation of the automatic stay moot. The only issue left pending was whether the decision by
3
the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Part, was null and void.
4
5 Plaintiffs reallege essentially the same facts,” and this time oppose that the action be dismissed as
6 || to the judicial officer, Although plaintiffs may be judicially estopped’ from such a course of action,
7 || the court finds that Judge Colom’s actions are shielded with judicial immunity.
8 It is a basic tenet of our system of justice that judicial officers must be free to decide
9 ,
controversies without fear of personal consequences, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and
10
i are entitled to judicial immunity for their actions in furtherance of their judicial duties and
12 ie . ;
violation of the provisions of Section 542(a).
13 ; . . .
32. In refusing to declare the public auction null and void, Judge Colom has
14 acted with knowledge that Debtors have filed a Chapter 11 petition and that the
retention of property of the estate is a willful violation of Section 542,
15 33. As aresult of Judge Colom’s intentional, deliberate and unlawful conduct,
16 Debtors are entitled to compensatory damages.
7 ? See Amended Complaint (Docket No. 41):
18 13. Notwithstanding Debtors’ bankruptcy filing on December 8, 2004, which
was duly notified, the Bayamén Court proceeded to sell the aforementioned
19 properties through public auction on December 20, 2004, eleven (11} days after
Debtors’ bankrupicy petition.
20 14, The public auction was performed notwithstanding Debtors’ request for
ml a stay of all proceedings filed on December 17, 2004, copy of which is attached as
Exhibit B of the Complaint. Pursuant to the illegal public auction, co-defendants
Almeida paid $3,665,000.00 for the subject property. Said monies are still
22 deposited in the Bayamén Court.
23 15. Furthermore, Debtors proceeded to request from Judge Colom to declare
the public auction null and yoid, through motion filed on December 22, 2004, copy
24 of which is attached as Exhibit C of the Complaint. Said motion was initially
granted by Judge Colom (see Order included as Exhibit D of the Complaint) but
25 after scheduling an emergency hearing for January 27, 2005, Judge Colom
proceeded to vacate her initial ruling and ruled instead that the public auction was
26 valid. See Minutes of proceedings enclosed as Exhibit E of the Complaint.
(Footnote omitted.)
27
3 A party may be judicially estopped from presenting a position direcily inconsistent with one previously
28 || taken. In re Bankvest Capital Corp., 375 F.3d 51, 60 (1st Cir. 2004).
-2-

Case

oO SO SS DH UO Fe WY LY

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

05-00102-ESL Doc#:70 Filed:05/09/06 Entered:05/09/06 15:48:35 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3

responsibilities, unless performed in clear absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles vy. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,
14 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227-229 (1988). The scope of subject matter
jurisdiction must be broadly construed. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356. A judge is entitled to judicial
immunity even ifhe or she acted in error, including whether or not the automatic stay provisions of
11 U.S.C. 362(a) are applicable to the controversy before said court. Kearns y. Orr, 161 B.R. 701,
704 (D. Kansas 1993).

The contested judicial action by Judge Colom is her decision not to vacate a public auction
held in a distribution of inheritance action under her consideration, made after the filing of the
bankruptcy petition. Clearly, Judge Colom had subject matter jurisdiction over the distribution of
inheritance action. Whether or not she may have erred on her decision regarding the applicability of
the automatic stay is irrelevant. Judge Colom is entitled to judicial immunity for her decision. See
in re Perry, 312 B.R. 720 (Bankr. MD. Georgia 2004); In re Womack, 253 B.R. 241
(Bankr. E.D. Arkansas 2000); Jn re Coates, 108 B.R. 823 (Bankr. M.D. Georgia 1989).

In view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint is dismissed as
to Judge Colom. The Clerk shall enter partial judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED. rh

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this “day of May, 2006.

arb

— ENRIQUE S. LAMOUTTE
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge