Bernard-Ex v. Lay

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-2195-JAD-BNW Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, Plaintiff v. Order Denying Motion to Stay D. Matthew Lay, [ECF No. 11] 7 Defendant

9 Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex sues his criminal-defense attorney D. Matthew Lay for his alleged ineffective assistance and other misconduct during a 2017 Las Vegas Justice Court matter.1 Bernard-Ex moves to stay this case, arguing that his filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 2024, triggered an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).2 13 But the automatic stay does not work that way. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that the stay provided by § 362 “does not prevent a plaintiff/debtor from continuing to prosecute its own claims nor does it prevent a defendant from protecting its interests against claims brought by the debtor.”3 “This is true, even if the defendant’s successful defense will result in the loss of an allegedly valuable claim asserted by the debtor.”4 So, because Bernard-Ex initiated this action, and there are no claims in this case against him, ECF No. 8.

2 ECF No. 11.

23 3 In re Palmdale Hills Property, LLC, 654 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2011).

4 Id. 1 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay this case based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) [ECF No. 11] is DENIED.

U.S. District Fudge Jennifer A‘ Dorsey 4 January 7, 2025