Heather Lynn Rodriguez v. Daniel Rodriguez

11 United States Code section 362(b)(2)(A)(iv) (which applies to Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases) provides: “(b)The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or of an application under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, does not operate as a stay ––...(2) under subsection ((A) of the commencement or continuation of a civil action or proceeding (iv) for the dissolution of a marriage, except to the extent that such proceeding seeks to determine the division of property that is property of the estate....” 2) The Court finds Husband’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – Family Law, Set One does not constitute a proceeding seeking “to determine the division of property that is property of the estate” within the meaning of 11 United States Code section 362(b)(2)(A)(iv). Accordingly, the Court finds the bankruptcy stay does not preclude this Court from ruling on Husband’s motion to compel. 3) Husband failed to file a Separate Statement with his motion to compel as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). The Court could deny the motion on that basis alone, but the Court will instead make an order on the merits of the motion. The Court finds Husband has not established good cause for further responses at this time given that the parties have already entered into a global settlement agreement and there are currently no financial or property-related requests pending before this Court. The motion to compel further responses is denied.