Deen v. Kreditor CA4/3

Filed 8/11/22 Deen v. Kreditor CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ISHA DEEN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G059670

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01022313)

EOIN KREDITOR et.al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Theodore Howard, Judge. Affirmed. Isha Deen, in pro. per., Todd Daniel Beld Professional Corporation and Todd Daniel Beld for Plaintiff and Appellant. [Retained.] Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Raul L. Martinez and Christina M. Guerin for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Isha Deen appeals from the judgment dismissing the lawsuit she and her spouse, Kevin Khwaja, filed against Eoin Kreditor, Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor, LLP (collectively Kreditor), David Lawrence, and Natalie Fitzgerald for failure to prosecute.1 Deen argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the case because (1) she gave notice of an automatic stay following her declaration of bankruptcy, and (2) she had given notice of its removal to the federal bankruptcy court. We find no error and affirm the judgment. The automatic bankruptcy stay that Deen references applies only in cases where the bankruptcy debtor is a defendant. Because Deen was the plaintiff in this case, her bankruptcy declaration did not automatically stay this action. As for the removal, Kreditor argues that the removal never actually occurred, but we need not decide that point because even if it did, Deen agrees that both her bankruptcy case and the related action she sought to pursue by removing this case were subsequently dismissed by the federal bankruptcy court without any remand to the trial court. And Deen herself argues that the federal court’s dismissal without remand to the state court had the effect of dismissing this case in the trial court as well. So, both sides agree the case was dismissed; they differ only on the details of how that came about. We agree.