This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 10:33:44 (UTC).

OG VIEWSITE INVESTMENTS LLC VS CONTRACTOR CREWS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/15/2017 OG VIEWSITE INVESTMENTS LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CONTRACTOR CREWS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6047

  • Filing Date:

    09/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

OG VIEWSITE INVESTMENTS LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

A PLUS METALS

CONTRACTOR CREWS INC

DOES 1 TO 100

GR MARBLE & TILE INC

A PLUS VENTURES LLC DBA A PLUS METALS

A PLUS VENTURES LLC DBA A PLUS METALS DBA A PLUS METALS

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

A PLUS VENTURES LLC DBA A PLUS METALS

ROES 1 THROUGH 20

GR MARBLE & TILE INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KREDITOR EOIN L. ESQ.

OSWALD & YAP LAW OFFICES OF

LAWRENCE DAVID MATTHEW ESQ.

KREDITOR EOIN LYLE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WALTON LORRIE A. LAW OFFICES OF

WALTON LORRIE ANNE

NAGPAL VIK

PENDLETON MELODY RUSSELL

SHRAGER KATHERINE M

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GROSFELD ROBERT ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/30/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE

1/31/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREWS, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS

3/21/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREWS, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS

Unknown

3/21/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/21/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF RULING CONTINUING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

5/14/2018: NOTICE OF RULING CONTINUING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CONTRACTOR CREWS, INC. SUBSTITUTE SERVED ON ROE 2 GR MARBLE & TILE, INC. ON AUGUST 8, 2018

8/17/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CONTRACTOR CREWS, INC. SUBSTITUTE SERVED ON ROE 2 GR MARBLE & TILE, INC. ON AUGUST 8, 2018

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

9/27/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

Case Management Statement

10/22/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

10/23/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

1/25/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

2/7/2019: Declaration

Case Management Statement

2/13/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice

3/20/2019: Notice

Case Management Statement

4/11/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice

5/8/2019: Notice

Unknown

1/12/2018: Unknown

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice ( OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: AUTOMATIC STAY); Filed by OG VIEWSITE INVESTMENTS LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation To Set Aside Default Of Gr Marble & Tile, Inc.); Filed by GR MARBLE & TILE INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Request for Dismissal (Not Entered); Filed by CONTRACTOR CREWS INC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by CONTRACTOR CREWS INC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Answer; Filed by GR MARBLE & TILE INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Notice (re: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Filing by Defendant); Filed by A Plus Ventures, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Answer; Filed by GR MARBLE & TILE INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 11/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE& OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by OG VIEWSITE INVESTMENTS LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676047    Hearing Date: April 23, 2020    Dept: 26

On February 24, 2020, Lorrie A. Walton (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant A Plus Ventures, LLC (“Client”). Initially, the motion was set for hearing on March 23, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and closure of civil courtrooms from March 17, 2020 through April 16, 2020, the court on its own motion continued this motion to April 23, 2020. The Court served notice of the continuance on moving Counsel and ordered Counsel to serve notice on all other parties, including her Client. Moving Counsel has failed to file proof of service of the court’s March 17, 2020 order on any other party, including Client. Therefore, it is unclear whether all parties, including Client, have received notice of the continued hearing date, and the motion must be further continued unless Moving Counsel timely files proof of service of the court’s March 17, 2020 order on all other parties, including the Client.

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states she has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by conversation, by telephone, and through the declaration of Client confirming the address.

Counsel requests to be relieved as counsel as Client has filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and is no longer in business.

Counsel must electronically file a corrected proposed order on form MC-053 prior to the hearing and/or bring a corrected proposed order on form MC-053 to the hearing. Provided that Counsel electronically files a corrected proposed order on form MC-053 prior to the hearing and/or brings a corrected proposed order on form MC-053 to the hearing, the Court is inclined to grant the motion to be relieved based on the declaration filed by Counsel. However, the proposed order on form MC-053 has not been properly completed.

The proposed order on form MC-053 must include the Court’s full address in items 7(a), 8 and 9(b). The Court’s records show the following upcoming hearings, which must all be listed in the revised proposed order (MC-053):

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order. For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

The Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record. (Id.; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, “[a]n attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 504.)

In light of these authorities, the Court will require that A Plus Ventures, LLC timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of the signed order (MC-053) so that new counsel will be prepared for trial by the current trial date. The court hereby sets an OSC regarding status of A Plus Ventures, LLC’s representation for May 18, 2020, at 8:30 am in Department 26. A Plus Ventures, LLC is ordered to appear on May 18, 2020, with its new counsel, who should be prepared to address counsel’s readiness for trial by the current trial date.

If A Plus Ventures, LLC fails to file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of the signed order, A Plus Ventures, LLC is ordered to appear on May 18, 2020, at 8:30 am in Department 26 and show cause why A Plus Ventures, LLC’s answer should not be stricken as to Plaintiff’s Complaint and as to Contractor Crews, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint and why default and default judgment should not be entered against A Plus Ventures, LLC on Plaintiff’s Complaint and on Contractor Crews, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint. A Plus Ventures, LLC’s failure to appear on May 18, 2020, at 8:30 am in Department 26 shall be deemed consent to: striking of A Plus Ventures, LLC’s answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Contractor Crews, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint and entry of default and default judgment against A Plus Ventures, LLC on Plaintiff’s Complaint and on Contractor Crews, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint.

The proposed orders (MC-053) are corrected as specified above and to add the following language to item 9: “Failure to appear at trial will result in: (1) the Court deeming that Defendant and Cross-Defendant A Plus Ventures waives its appearance for trial, (2) the trial proceeding in Defendant and Cross-Defendant A Plus Ventures’ absence, (3) the entry of judgment against Defendant A Plus Ventures on Plaintiff’s complaint in any amount of damages proven at trial, and (4) the entry of judgment against Cross-Defendant A Plus Ventures on Contractor Crews, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint in any amount of damages proven at trial.”

The corrected Orders are signed and filed, and Counsel is relieved as counsel of record for A Plus Ventures, LLC, effective only upon Counsel’s filing of the proofs of service of the signed Orders upon A Plus Ventures, LLC. Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files proof of service of the signed order on all parties, including A Plus Ventures, LLC.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including A Plus Ventures, LLC, and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

Case Number: BC676047    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 26

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

OG VIEWSITE INVESMENTS, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRACTOR CREWS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC676047

Hearing Date: January 21, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an alleged breach of a construction contract for residential housing. On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff OG Viewsite Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants Contractor Crews Inc., GR Marble & Tile, Inc., A Plus Ventures, LLC and DOES 1 through 100 alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of implied warranty, and (4) negligence. On March 21, 2018, Contractor Crews, Inc. filed a Cross-complaint against ROES 1 through 20 for indemnity and contribution.

On March 20, 2019, Defendant A Plus Ventures, LLC (“Defendant” or “A Plus Ventures”) filed a notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. On May 2, 2019, the court ordered the case stayed pending A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy.

On November 6, 2019, the parties advised that defendant A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy closed with a statement of no assets. (Min. Order 11/6/19.) A Plus Ventures provided no legal authority as to why the stay in this action should not be lifted given that there is no pending bankruptcy proceeding involving any of the parties. Plaintiff and A Plus Ventures disputed the legal effect of the closing of A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy with a statement of no assets. The Court noted that A Plus Ventures would have to provide legal authority to support its contention that a closure of bankruptcy with a statement of no assets for an LLC has the same force and effect as a discharge for an individual. The Court further noted that A Plus Ventures would have to file a noticed motion if it seeks dismissal over Plaintiff’s objection. Finally, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit briefing to support its assertion that A Plus Ventures remains a proper defendant notwithstanding that A Plus Ventures has demonstrated that its bankruptcy has closed with a declaration of no assets. Plaintiff filed its supplemental briefing on this issue, as ordered, on November 19, 2019.

A Plus Ventures has not filed any motion seeking dismissal. Nor has A Plus Ventures filed any briefing in response to Plaintiff’s briefing. Instead, on November 18, 2019, Lorrie A. Walton, counsel for A Plus Ventures (“Counsel”), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

ANALYSIS

Effect of A Plus Ventures’ Bankruptcy Proceedings on A Plus Ventures’ Status in this Case

As noted above, Plaintiff has filed a supplemental brief to support its position that A Plus Ventures remains a proper Defendant in this case notwithstanding the closure of A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy with a declaration of no assets. Plaintiff asserts that the closure of A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy case on May 17, 2019 means that the automatic stay in this case was terminated. (Supp. Brief p. 3:2-3.) Plaintiff further asserts that A Plus Ventures’ debts were not discharged because courts are unwilling to permit the debts of corporations or limited liability companies to be discharged. (Id. p. 3:4-7.)

The bankruptcy code provides that the court shall grant the debtor a discharge unless the debtor is not an individual. (11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1).) As noted by Plaintiff, courts have held that corporations may not discharge their debts in chapter 7 proceedings. (see In re Tri-R Builders, Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1986) 86 B.R. 138, 14, [due to debtor’s corporate status “it is not entitled to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727.”]; see also Matter of Springfield Const. Co. (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983) 31 B.R. 395, 396, [“a discharge in bankruptcy is denied by statute to a corporation.”]; In re Hanson (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) 432 B.R. 758, 766, fn. 1, [“a limited liability company, cannot receive a discharge.”].)

Counsel for A Plus Ventures has previously provided evidence of the bankruptcy court’s docket reflecting the Trustee’s Report of No Distribution as A Plus Ventures had no assets to distribute. (Walton Decl. filed 11/6/19 ¶ 4, Exh. A.) The trustee in the bankruptcy estate has certified that the estate has been fully administered, and the trustee has requested to be discharged from further duties as trustee. (Id. Exh. A.) A Plus Ventures has failed to submit any legal authority supporting its contention that the Trustee’s Report of No Distribution has the same effect as a discharge. Nor has A Plus Ventures cited any legal authority contradicting the authorities above or any other cases cited in Plaintiff’s brief filed on November 19, 2019.

At the December 18, 2019 hearing on A Plus Ventures’ Counsel’s motion to be relieved, the Court presented A Plus Ventures’ Counsel with the option of continuing the motion to be relieved so as to allow Counsel to file a brief responding to Plaintiff’s November 19, 2019 brief prior to withdrawing from the case. A Plus Ventures’ Counsel availed herself of this option and requested a continuance of her motion to be relieved to allow her to file a brief opposing Plaintiff’s brief filed on November 19, 2019 and to cite legal authority supporting its contention that the Trustee’s Report of No Distribution has the same effect as a discharge. The Court granted A Plus Ventures’ Counsel’s request to continue her motion to be relieved to January 21, 2020 and ordered A Plus Ventures’ Counsel to file its brief by January 6, 2020. The Court advised that if A Plus Ventures failed to file its opposition brief by January 6, 2020, the bankruptcy stay would remain lifted without any dismissal of A Plus Ventures, and A Plus Ventures would not be dismissed from this action over Plaintiff’s objection unless and until A Plus Ventures prevails on a noticed motion to dismiss.

On January 6, 2020, Defendant’s Counsel filed a brief on the “Issue on Dismissal of Defendant A Plus Ventures, LLC following the filing of Bankruptcy.” (“Defendant’s 1/6/20 Brief.”) In its brief, A Plus Ventures, LLC concedes that “no discharge was received by the entity,” and A Plus Ventures, LLC cites no legal authority supporting dismissal of A Plus Ventures at this juncture. (Defendant’s 1/6/20 Brief.)

As set forth above and in Plaintiff’s brief filed on November 19, 2019, the law appears to support that Plaintiff may continue to pursue litigation, even against a defendant with no assets. (March, Alan & Shapiro, Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 3:26-3:27.) The bankruptcy stay remains lifted without any dismissal of A Plus Ventures. A Plus Ventures will not be dismissed from this action over Plaintiff’s objection unless and until A Plus Ventures prevails on a noticed motion to dismiss.

Motion to Be Relieved

As to the motion filed by Lorrie A. Walton (“Counsel”) to be relieved as counsel for defendant A Plus Ventures, LLC (“Client”), Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that Counsel confirm Client’s address “within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” Rule 3.1362 further provides that “[m]erely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.

Here, the MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states she has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion. However, Counsel does not assert that she confirmed that the address is current by the traditional means of “mail, return receipt requested,” “telephone,” or “conversation” on Form MC-052. Instead, Counsel states that she has confirmed that the address is current by “address pursuant to Secretary of State filing.” Counsel does not state the date of the Secretary of State filing that she used to confirm Client’s address. Nor does Counsel provide a copy of the Secretary of State filing itself. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the address on file according to the Secretary of State’s website is not a current address for Client, given that Counsel declares that Client “is no longer in business.” Accordingly, Counsel has failed to demonstrate that the address listed on the Secretary of State filing is indeed current as of 30 days prior to the filing of Counsel’s motion to be relieved.

Rule 3.1362’s requirement that Client’s address be confirmed as current within 30 days of Counsel’s motion to be relieved is not a mere technicality without a purpose. If the Court grants Counsel’s motion to be relieved without requiring a current, working address for Client, neither the Court nor the other parties will have the ability to serve Client with pleadings, motions, and orders, which implicates due process concerns.

Because Counsel has failed to confirm within 30 days of the motion that Client’s address is current, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is denied without prejudice. Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client, by a combination of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known address, return receipt requested; calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, or other means. If after making these reasonable and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for Client, Counsel may renew her motion to be relieved by filing new moving papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for Client.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

A Plus Ventures has failed to demonstrate that it should be dismissed from this action as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy stay remains lifted without any dismissal of A Plus Ventures. A Plus Ventures will not be dismissed from this action over Plaintiff’s objection unless and until A Plus Ventures prevails on a noticed motion to dismiss.

Lorrie A. Walton’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant A Plus Ventures, LLC is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving Counsel is ordered to serve a copy of this signed order on all parties, including A Plus Ventures, and file proof of service of such within 10 days.

DATED: January 21, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC676047    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 26

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an alleged breach of a construction contract for residential housing. On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff OG Viewsite Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants Contractor Crews Inc., GR Marble & Tile, Inc., A Plus Ventures, LLC and DOES 1 through 100 alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of implied warranty, and (4) negligence. On March 21, 2018, Contractor Crews, Inc. filed a Cross-complaint against ROES 1 through 20 for indemnity and contribution.

On March 20, 2019, Defendant A Plus Ventures, LLC (“Defendant” or “A Plus Ventures”) filed a notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. On May 2, 2019, the court ordered the case stayed pending A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy.

On November 6, 2019, the parties advised that defendant A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy closed with a statement of no assets. (Min. Order 11/6/19.) A Plus Ventures provided no legal authority as to why the stay in this action should not be lifted given that there is no pending bankruptcy proceeding involving any of the parties. Plaintiff and A Plus Ventures disputed the legal effect of the closing of A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy with a statement of no assets. The Court noted that A Plus Ventures would have to provide legal authority to support its contention that a closure of bankruptcy with a statement of no assets for an LLC has the same force and effect as a discharge for an individual. The Court further noted that A Plus Ventures would have to file a noticed motion if it seeks dismissal over Plaintiff’s objection. Finally, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit briefing to support its assertion that A Plus Ventures remains a proper defendant notwithstanding that A Plus Ventures has demonstrated that its bankruptcy has closed with a declaration of no assets. Plaintiff filed its supplemental briefing on this issue, as ordered, on November 19, 2019.

A Plus Ventures has not filed any motion seeking dismissal. Nor has A Plus Ventures filed any briefing in response to Plaintiff’s briefing. Instead, on November 18, 2019, Lorrie A. Walton, counsel for A Plus Ventures (“Counsel”), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

ANALYSIS

Effect of A Plus Ventures’ Bankruptcy Proceedings on A Plus Ventures’ Status in this Case

As noted above, Plaintiff has filed a supplemental brief to support its position that A Plus Ventures remains a proper Defendant in this case notwithstanding the closure of A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy with a declaration of no assets. Plaintiff asserts that the closure of A Plus Ventures’ bankruptcy case on May 17, 2019 means that the automatic stay in this case was terminated. (Supp. Brief p. 3:2-3.) Plaintiff further asserts that A Plus Ventures’ debts were not discharged because courts are unwilling to permit the debuts of corporations or limited liability companies to be discharged. (Id. p. 3:4-7.)

The bankruptcy code provides that the court shall grant the debtor a discharge unless the debtor is not an individual. (11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1).) As noted by Plaintiff, courts have held that corporations may not discharge their debts in chapter 7 proceedings. (see In re Tri-R Builders, Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1986) 86 B.R. 138, 14, [due to debtor’s corporate status “it is not entitled to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727.”]; see also Matter of Springfield Const. Co. (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983) 31 B.R. 395, 396, [“a discharge in bankruptcy is denied by statute to a corporation.”]; In re Hanson (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) 432 B.R. 758, 766, fn. 1, [“a limited liability company, cannot receive a discharge.”].)

Counsel for A Plus Ventures has previously provided evidence of the bankruptcy court’s docket reflecting the Trustee’s Report of No Distribution as A Plus Ventures had no assets to distribute. (Walton Decl. filed 11/6/19 ¶ 4, Exh. A.) The trustee in the bankruptcy estate has certified that the estate has been fully administered, and the trustee has requested to be discharged from further duties as trustee. (Id. Exh. A.) A Plus Ventures has failed to submit any legal authority supporting its contention that the Trustee’s Report of No Distribution has the same effect as a discharge. Nor has A Plus Ventures cited any legal authority contradicting the authority above or any other cases cited in Plaintiff’s brief filed on November 19, 2019.

At the December 18, 2019 hearing on A Plus Ventures’ Counsel’s motion to be relieved, the Court will present A Plus Ventures’ Counsel with the option of continuing the motion to be relieved so as to allow Counsel to file a brief responding to Plaintiff’s November 19, 2019 brief prior to withdrawing from the case. Otherwise, the bankruptcy stay will be lifted without any dismissal of A Plus Ventures. As previously noted, A Plus Ventures will not be dismissed from this action over Plaintiff’s objection until A Plus Ventures prevails on a noticed motion to dismiss.