In re Associated Community Services, Inc.

520 B.R. 650 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014) · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · October 30, 2014

Summary

The bankruptcy court partially sustained the debtor’s objection to Daniel Pepper’s $10 million proof of claim, which purported to be filed on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court held that Pepper was not authorized to file a class proof of claim because no court had certified the class or authorized his representative capacity, and he had not timely sought application of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023. The court allowed further proceedings on Pepper’s individual claim because factual disputes remained regarding alleged violations of California privacy law.

Holdings

  1. A creditor may not file a class action proof of claim on behalf of other creditors without the requisite authorization and timely application of Bankruptcy Rule 7023 through Bankruptcy Rule 9014. Pepper's proof of claim was therefore disallowed to the extent it asserted claims on behalf of anyone other than Pepper.
  2. Pepper was not entitled to additional time to conduct discovery and file a Rule 7023 motion because his delay was unreasonable and further proceedings would prejudice the debtor and creditors and unduly delay administration of the Chapter 11 case.
  3. Pepper's individual claim could not be resolved on the existing record because the parties' declarations created issues of fact concerning whether the debtor violated California privacy laws. The court ordered an evidentiary hearing after requiring Pepper to amend his proof of claim to state only his individual damages.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Pepper could file a proof of claim on behalf of a putative class without prior class certification or a timely motion requesting application of Bankruptcy Rule 7023.
  2. Whether Pepper should receive additional time to conduct discovery and seek application of Bankruptcy Rule 7023 after the debtor objected to the class proof of claim.
  3. Whether factual disputes concerning the alleged California privacy-law violations precluded disallowance of Pepper's individual claim.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Reid v. White Motor Corp., 886 F.2d 1462 (6th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • In re American Reserve Corp., 840 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Ephedra Products Liability Litigation, 329 B.R. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)(relied upon)
  • Computer Learning Centers, Inc., 344 B.R. 79 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006)(relied upon)
  • Kahler v. FIRST-PLUS Financial, Inc. (In re FIRSTPLUS Financial, Inc.), 248 B.R. 60 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000)(relied upon)
  • Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp. (In re Standard Metals Corp.), 817 F.2d 625 (10th Cir. 1987)(relied upon)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…