In re G. YVONNE STEPHENS LARRY K. ALEXANDER, Debtors.
JOHN A. HEDBACK and MARY JO A. JENSEN-CARTER Appellees. LARRY KENNETH ALEXANDER, ANDREW WILL ALEXANDER and GEORGINA YVONNE STEPHENS, Appellants. Civil Nos. 12-2775 (JRT), 12-2785 (JRT)
Daniel L.M. Kennedy, KENNEDY LAW GROUP PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellants.
Michael J. Iannacone, III, and Mary F. Ahrens, IANNACONE LAW OFFICE, Lake Elmo, MN, for Appellees.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE SANCTIONS ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.
This litigation - now in its fifteenth year - was originally over the ownership and possession of 875 Laurel Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota ("875 Laurel"). The case initiated in 1998 with two bankruptcy cases by then-spouses, Larry Alexander ("Alexander") and Georgina Yvonne Stephens. Since then the parties have visited the state court, the Bankruptcy Court, this Court, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit numerous times. The federal courts repeatedly determined that the bankruptcy estates own 875 Laurel, and the trustees have now sold the property. Yet Alexander, Stephens, and now their son, Andrew Alexander ("Andrew") (collective, the "Appellees") refuse to end this litigation.
This matter is before the Court on the appeal of United States Bankruptcy Judge Dennis D. O'Brien's September 21, 2012 order sanctioning Andrew and the family's attorney, Daniel L.M. Kennedy. Because the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction and the Bankruptcy Judge did not abuse his discretion, the order imposing sanctions will be affirmed.
The history of this case is well summarized in In re Stephens, In re Alexander, No. 04-3468, No. 98-34858, No. 98-33694 (Bankr. D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2006); see also In re Stephens, Civ. Nos. 11-3459, 11-2661, 2012 WL 1899716 (D. Minn. May 24, 2012); Alexander v. Hedback, Civ. No. 11-3590, 2012 WL 2004103 (D. Minn. June 5, 2012). For purposes of this appeal, the key events are as follows.
After the Bankruptcy Court declared the trustees of Alexander's and Stephens' bankruptcy estates, John Hedback and Mary Jo Jensen-Carter (the "Trustees"), to be the owners of 875 Laurel, it ordered Alexander and Stephens to vacate the house before September 15, 2011. See Alexander, 2012 WL 2004103, at *3. The Bankruptcy Court's order directed the U.S. Marshals to assist in removal of the debtors and others occupying the property, if necessary. See id. When the occupants of 875 Laurel, including Andrew, did not vacate the house, they were evicted. Id. at *4. Andrew then filed an action in this district alleging, inter alia, that this eviction violated his civil rights and took his property without due process of law. Id. at *5, *9-10. On the defendants' motions, the court dismissed Andrew's complaint on June 5, 2012. See id. at *14.
While Andrew's case was pending, Andrew drafted and signed a Notice of Lis Pendens that was recorded on December 27, 2011, referencing his pending case. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Notice of Motion and Emergency Motion to Void Lis Pendens at 10, May 21, 2012, Docket No. 259 (providing copy of Notice).) In addition, Kennedy filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Andrew and his parents on April 27, 2012, in the pending bankruptcy case. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice, Apr. 27, 2012, Docket No. 238.) Andrew also filed an objection as an "Interested Party" to a motion by the Trustees in the bankruptcy case. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Objections to Approval of Sale, May 4, 2012, Docket No. 240.)
When the Trustees tried to sell 875 Laurel in May 2012 and the Notice of Lis Pendens prevented the sale from going forward, the Trustees filed an emergency motion to void the Notice of Lis Pendens and sought attorney's fees and sanctions of $25, 000 to be awarded to each bankruptcy estate. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Notice of Motion and Emergency Motion to Void Lis Pendens, May 21, 2012, Docket No. 259.) The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to void the Notice of Lis Pendens (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Order, May 25, 2012, Docket No. 263) and set a discovery schedule and hearing date on the motion for sanctions (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Order for Evidentiary Hearing and for Use of Electronic Evidence, May 25, 2012, Docket No. 264).
According to the Trustees, Andrew and Kennedy did not cooperate with their discovery requests, and the Trustees brought a motion to extend discovery. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Notice of Motion and Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines and Continue Evidentiary Hearing, July 20, 2012, Docket No. 272.) Andrew and Kennedy filed a memorandum in opposition. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, July 28, 2012, Docket No. 273.) The Bankruptcy Judge held a hearing and told Kennedy and Alexander if they did not "cooperate and participate in good faith with the scheduling order, " a substantive determination would be made against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Aug. 2, 2012, Docket No. 274) In a written order, the Bankruptcy Court extended the deadlines and further cautioned the parties that "DISCOVERY DISPUTES WHICH REQUIRE JUDICIAL RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS." (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Amended Order for Evidentiary Hearing and for Use of Electronic Evidence at 1, Aug. 7, 2012, Docket No. 277.)
On August 17, 2012, the Trustees brought a motion to compel discovery. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery, Aug. 17, 2012, Docket No. 281.) The Trustees noted that Andrew had failed to appear for a deposition and requested that the Court compel Andrew to appear for a deposition. ( Id. ) The Trustees also moved the Court to compel Kennedy to answer certain questions. ( Id. ) Finally, the Trustees sought attorney's fees for the cost of bringing the motion and sought sanctions against Kennedy and Andrew "for obstructing discovery." ( Id. at 2-3.) Kennedy and Andrew filed a memorandum in opposition. (Bankr. No. 98-33694, Sept. 15, 2012, Docket No. 287.)
The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing and allowed the parties to state their positions in the discovery dispute. At the end of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court Judge stated:
If there was some true significant objection to the discovery that was served upon Andrew Alexander and Mr. Kennedy himself, it was incumbent upon them to try to resolve that first with the movant and, if that failed, to seek protection and remedy in the ...