Rus v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas grants the debtor’s motion to dismiss Andrei Rus’s adversary complaint without prejudice. The court concludes that the complaint fails to state plausible claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 503(b), 542, and 1106 concerning alleged spoliation, administrative expenses, and preservation or turnover of electronically stored information. The court permits amendment consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent regarding pro se dismissals.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a plausible claim under § 105 because it did not identify a Bankruptcy Code provision that the requested relief would carry out and did not plausibly allege an abuse of the bankruptcy process warranting sanctions.
2. The complaint failed to state a plausible administrative-expense claim because it did not allege an actual or necessary cost or expense that benefited the bankruptcy estate and its creditors.
3. The complaint failed to state a claim under § 542 because Rus was not a trustee and did not allege facts supporting a plausible claim for turnover of estate property.
4. The complaint failed to state a plausible claim under § 1106 because Rus did not allege how he was entitled to relief or identify trustee duties that had been violated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rus stated a plausible claim under 11 U.S.C. § 105 based on alleged postpetition spoliation and failure to implement a litigation hold.
2. Whether Rus stated a plausible claim for an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b).
3. Whether Rus stated a plausible claim for turnover of estate property under 11 U.S.C. § 542.
4. Whether Rus stated a plausible claim under 11 U.S.C. § 1106 concerning trustee or examiner duties.

Disposition

dismissed