GREGORY M. SALVATO (Cal. Bar. No. 126285), admitted pro ...
Transcript of GREGORY M. SALVATO (Cal. Bar. No. 126285), admitted pro ...
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-i- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
GREGORY M. SALVATO (Cal. Bar. No. 126285), admitted pro hac vice [email protected] JOSEPH BOUFADEL (Cal. Bar. No. 267312) [email protected] SALVATO BOUFADEL LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017-5826 Telephone: (213) 484-8400 SEAN K. CLAGGETT (Nevada Bar No. 008407) [email protected] JOSHUA A. DOWLING (Nevada Bar No. 012956) [email protected] CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Telephone: (702) 655-2346 Facsimile: (702) 655-3763 Attorneys for Creditor and Movant ESMERALDA SERVIN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
In re:
SPLASH NEWS & PICTURE AGENCY, LLC, Debtor.
Case No. 21-11377-ABL Chapter 11 (Subchapter V election) Esmeralda Servin’s Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Continue Prosecution of Action in Non-Bankruptcy Forum; Declaration of Gregory M. Salvato, Esq. in Support Hearing Date: Date: June 7, 2021 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 1 (3rd Floor) 300 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NV 89101
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 1 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-ii- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases Page(s)
In re Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp. 85 B.R. 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................ 8
Batista v. Redondo Constr. Corp. 2006 Bankr.LEXIS 3831 (Bankr. D. P.R. 2006) ........................................................... 7
In re Curtis 40 B.R. 795 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984) ......................................................................... 9, 10
Garcia v. Skar 626 B.R. 750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021) ........................................................................... 7
In re Gary Brew Enters. Ltd. 198 B.R. 616 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1996) ........................................................................... 7
In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. 281 B.R. 154 (D. Conn. 2002) ....................................................................................... 7
In re Kronemyer 405 B.R. 915 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 9
In re Santa Clara County Fair Ass’n 180 B.R. 564 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................... 1, 4
In re Smith 389 B.R. 902 (Bk. D. Nev. 2008) .............................................................................. 7, 8
California Cases Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys. Inc.
13 Cal.App.4th 976 (1993) ........................................................................................... 7
Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. 18 Cal.4th 857 (1998) .......................................................................................... 3, 4, 11
Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co. 65 Cal.2d 263 (1966) ....................................................................................... 1, 2, 4, 11
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 2 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-iii- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Federal Statutes & Rules 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) ...................................................................................................... 7, 8
California Statutes Cal. Ins. Code § 11580(b)(1) ......................................................................................... 5, 11
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 3 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-1- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ESMERALDA SERVIN’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY
Movant Esmeralda Servin (“Servin”) respectfully submits this Reply to the
Opposition [Dkt. No.155] filed by Debtor Splash News & Picture Agency, Inc. (“Debtor”)
in support of her Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to Continue Prosecution of United
States District Court Action filed by Creditor Esmeralda Servin (the “Motion”) [Dkt. No.
121], as follows:
The Debtor raises two main arguments in opposition to Servin’s Motion: (1) that
there would be an unfair cost imposed on the Debtor if the Court were to authorize Servin
to seek recovery from applicable insurance, and (2) that trial in the Bankruptcy Court
through the claims resolution process would be speedier and more efficient than
liquidating Servin’s claim in a non-bankruptcy forum. (Opposition at ¶ 1).
As discussed below, the Debtor’s arguments are flatly wrong. The fact that the
Debtor would bear some of the costs of defense of the litigation is not grounds for denying
relief. See In re Santa Clara County Fair Ass’n, 180 B.R. 564, 566 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)
(“Ordinarily, litigation costs to a bankruptcy estate do not compel a court to deny stay
relief”). Further, it is unlikely that this Bankruptcy Court, or the United States District
Court in Nevada, could readily schedule a 7 to 10-day jury trial on issues related entirely to
California employment law, nor is it likely those courts would want to do so. The most
efficient and expeditious way of dealing with this matter is to permit the parties to go
forward with their jury trial currently scheduled for February 22, 2022, in California.
The Debtor’s arguments are insufficient to justify denial of Servin’s Motion.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THE DEBTOR’S ARGUMENTS
A. The self-insured retention amount of $100,000 in the Insurance Policy:
The Debtor contends that “[t]he Policy may provide coverage with respect to the claims
asserted by Servin against Splash.” (Opposition at ¶ 6). “Additionally, if Splash were
determined to be liable for monetary damages to Servin in the Lawsuit, Zurich [the
insurer] will not pay under the Policy until Splash has paid $100,000 toward either a
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 4 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-2- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
settlement or judgment.” (Opposition at ¶ 7).
Movant’s Response: The Debtor misstates the situation. First, as acknowledged by
the Debtor, an Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) Policy (Policy No. EPL
6541325-10) (“Policy”)1 issued by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich” or
“Insurer”) provides coverage for Servin’s action against the Debtor. (Opposition at ¶¶ 4, 7-
8). Zurich has accepted defense of the action under a reservation of rights letter (see
Motion at Exhibit 3 [Dkt. No. 122]) and has provided a defense to the Debtor since
November 2020.
The Insurer retained the law firm of Lewis Brisbois to represent the Debtor in the
non-bankruptcy forum, which firm has already incurred at least $55,000 in defense of the
lawsuit prior to the bankruptcy filing. (Opposition at ¶¶ 8 & 10). As indicated, the
Debtor’s liability for defense costs is capped at $100,000.
Second, the Insurer cannot deny coverage under the Policy, or payment in excess of
the self-insured retention (“S.I.R.”) amount, even if the Debtor has not paid the initial
$100,000 in defense costs to Lewis Brisbois. (Opposition at ¶¶ 6-7). That is, the Insurer’s
obligations to pay on any settlement or judgment is for all amounts in excess of the
$100,000 S.I.R. up to the policy limits. And the Insurer cannot deny a defense to the
Debtor simply because of its insolvency or commencement of a bankruptcy case. The
Debtor is incorrect in stating that “Zurich will not pay under the Policy until Splash has
paid $100,000 toward either a settlement or judgment.” (Opposition at ¶ 7). Rather, the
Insurer’s obligation is to pay all amounts in excess of $100,000 regardless of whether the
Debtor pays the initial $100,000 to the Movant. See Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal.2d
263, 275 (1966) (California courts have long recognized that an insurance company “must
1 Although the Debtor did not submit a copy of the EPL insurance policy with its Opposition, after request from Servin’s counsel, the Debtor courteously provided a copy of the Policy, which is attached to the Declaration of Gregory Salvato, Esq. submitted herewith, as Exhibit 4.
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 5 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-3- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy”).
Indeed, the Insurer’s duty to defend against the Employment Action is immediate
and without regard to any exhaustion of retention for defense expenses. The Insurer has
the right and duty to defend against covered claims and that right attached once the Debtor
provided the Insurer notice of the claims at issue. To the point, the Insurer retained Lewis
Brisbois to serve as defense counsel for the Debtor, and Lewis Brisbois has undertaken
defense of the Debtor. (Opposition at ¶¶ 8 & 10).
Furthermore, the retention provisions in no way limit the Insurer’s duty to defend.
The Insurer’s duty to defend against the claims is not contingent on the Debtor’s payment
of the defense costs; that duty is only “subject to” the general conditions regarding
Insurer’s defense obligations, and those obligations are to commence the defense
immediately and entirely in its own control. Whether and when the Debtor satisfies its
$100,000 S.I.R as to defense costs is not Ms. Servin’s concern and does not affect the
coverage obligation. The Insurer’s duty to defend is immediate and exclusive. See Foster-
Gardner, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 18 Cal.4th 857, 869 (1998).
If, for example, a judgment is entered for $1 million, the Insurer will only be
obligated to pay $900,000; whether the Debtor pays the initial $100,000 to Ms. Servin is
irrelevant to the amount and obligation of the Insurer to pay its share, and to its duty and
obligation to defend the Debtor.
B. Expending resources of the bankruptcy estate: The Debtor contends that
it “has very limited funds and it is prejudicial to the bankruptcy estate and other creditors
for Splash to devote significant time and money to the claims of a single general unsecured
creditor.” (Opposition at ¶ 1). The Debtor argues that it “has limited funds and cannot
afford to pay to administer this bankruptcy case and pay to defend the Lawsuit at the same
time.” (Opposition at ¶ 14).
Movant’s Response: The Debtor turns the logic of this argument on its head. The
Debtor has the benefit of the EPLI Policy, which has already been invoked to provide
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 6 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-4- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
coverage and defense counsel to the Debtor. (Opposition at ¶¶ 3-4, 7-8 & 10). However,
litigating the employment action in the District Court in California—where the action
remains pending after removal from state court—is the most efficient and cost-effective
way to proceed.
The Debtor, the bankruptcy estate, and its creditors will benefit from the continued
prosecution of the action in California federal court instead of here. Litigating Servin’s
claim in the non-bankruptcy forum will save the bankruptcy estate time and resources
because defense of the employment claims is covered by insurance. Defense counsel has
already been retained by the Insurer on behalf of the Debtor, who has expended at least
$55,000 in fees. (Opposition at ¶ 10). Any judgment will be covered in an amount up to
the insurance policy limits (less the retention amount), and enforcement of any judgment
against the Debtor will remain stayed. The relatively small additional costs imposed on the
Debtor (which the Debtor will not have to pay except through a Plan of Reorganization)
are not sufficient grounds to deny Servin access to the insurance policy. In re Santa Clara
County Fair Ass’n, 180 B.R. 564, 566 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) (“Ordinarily, litigation costs
to a bankruptcy estate do not compel a court to deny stay relief”).
On the other hand, Debtor’s suggestion that Ms. Servin be required to litigate in
Bankruptcy Court, or District Court in Nevada, does not serve the interests of the
bankruptcy estate or its creditors. By arguing against lifting the automatic stay, the Debtor
is arguing against its own interests (and that of its creditors). Requiring the Debtor to
liquidate in this forum will increase the administrative costs to the estate, since Debtor’s
counsel will have primary responsibility of defending and contesting Servin’s claims in
this Bankruptcy Court or Nevada District Court. The estate will incur significant expense
to get “up to speed” in defending the litigation if it must be tried in bankruptcy court.
The Debtor fails to acknowledge that California law requires the insurer to continue
defending the Debtor now that Zurich has assumed its defense. See, supra, Gray v. Zurich
Ins. Co., 65 Cal.2d at 275; Foster-Gardner, Inc., 18 Cal.4th at 869. A bankruptcy filing or
insolvency does not relieve the Insurer of its obligations under the Policy; each insurance
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 7 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-5- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
policy issued under California law (as is the Zurich policy in this case) is required to
contain the following mandatory language:
“A provision that the insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured
will not release the insurer from the payment of damages for
injury sustained or loss occasioned during the life of such
policy.”
See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580(b)(1) (discussing mandatory provisions in policies regarding
insolvency of the insured). The Policy is to be construed in accordance with, and governed
by, California law. (See Salvato Declaration, Exhibit 4 at p. 12, ¶ K).
In compliance with California law, the Zurich insurance policy in fact
contains the following language at p.11. § E:
“The bankruptcy, insolvency or inability to pay of an Insured
or of an Insured's estate will not relieve us of our obligations
under this policy. However, neither shall such bankruptcy,
insolvency or inability to pay increase our liability with respect
to the Self-Insured Retention, nor in any other way.” (emphasis
in original).
(Salvato Declaration at Exhibit 4).
Indeed, as in many such EPLI policies, the self-insured retention amount may also
be deducted from the ultimate settlement or liability amount, resulting in no out-of-pocket
payment from the Debtor. In such situations, the Insurer will have a claim for the defense
costs against the Debtor.
In summary, the balance of harms weighs in favor of Servin and in favor of granting
relief from the automatic stay to continue prosecution of her claims in the non-bankruptcy
forum.
//
//
//
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 8 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-6- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
C. No proof of claim on file. The Debtor next argues that Ms. Servin’s claim
could most efficiently be resolved through the claims objection process: “Given its own
limited financial resources, Splash believes the claims resolution process of 11 U.S.C. §
502 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 provides a far more expeditious and effective manner for
resolving Servin’s alleged claim.” (Opposition at ¶ 18). Yet, in the very next paragraph,
the Debtor contends that the Court should delay ruling on the lift stay motion until Ms.
Servin has waived her right to a jury trial by filing a claim and until the Debtor has
objected to her claim: “At the very least, the Court should not rule on Servin’s Motion until
Servin has filed her proof of claim and Debtor has had an opportunity to seek to resolve
that claim through the normal claim resolution process.” (Opposition at ¶ 19).
Movant’s Response: The purpose of the lift stay Motion is continue prosecution of
Servin’s wrongful termination action to recover from insurance proceeds only. It is
inaccurate to state that the action can be tried more efficiently in Bankruptcy Court.
Additional discovery, including expert witness discovery, and depositions still need to be
completed. The parties anticipate a 7 to 10-day jury trial. The Bankruptcy Court does not
customarily handle employment claims based entirely on California law, nor does it appear
that the Bankruptcy Court has the time or resources to dedicate solely to a lengthy jury
trial.
Ms. Servin has not filed a Proof of Claim in this bankruptcy proceeding. The Court
has extended the deadline for Servin to file a Proof of Claim, should she choose to do so,
to June 14, 2021.
Whether Servin files a Proof of Claim or not, the “normal claim resolution process”
would not run its course by the upcoming June 21, 2021 deadline for the Debtor to propose
a Plan of Reorganization. What the Debtor seemingly fails to recognize—and which had
been suggested by counsel prior to the filing of the Motion—is that the Debtor can
estimate her claim for purposes of its Plan of Reorganization. As the policy indicates, the
Debtor’s maximum liability is the $100,000 S.I.R. amount in the Policy. Having removed
this original state court employment action to District Court on the basis of diversity
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 9 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-7- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
jurisdiction, the Debtor has already conceded that Ms. Servin’s claim exceeded $75,000.
The Debtor can easily estimate its maximum liability at this time for purposes of its
forthcoming Plan of Reorganization. (Opposition at p. 6, ¶ 24).
D. Personal Injury Claims: The Debtor contends that Servin’s California law-
based wrongful termination claims do not constitute personal injury tort claims under 28
U.S.C. § 157(b)(5). (Opposition at ¶¶ 30-31). As a result, the Debtor argues that her
claims do not need to be tried by the U.S. District Court.
Movant’s Response: For every out-of-the-district case cited by the Debtor for the
proposition that employment harassment and discrimination claims are not personal injury
tort claims within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), there are an equal number of out-
of-the-district cases holding that employment discrimination claims are personal injury
torts. California has so held. See, e.g., Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys. Inc., 13 Cal.App.4th 976,
1004-05 (1993) overruled on other grounds (sexual harassment in the workplace is a
personal injury when it impairs the well-being or the mental or physical health of the
victim). And numerous cases in other districts have similarly ruled. See, for example, In re
Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. 154 (D. Conn. 2002) (sexual harassment claims
were determined to be personal injury torts, relief from stay and request for abstention
granted); In re Gary Brew Enters. Ltd., 198 B.R. 616 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1996) (under the
“broader” view, claims of race discrimination in the workplace are “personal injury tort
claims”); Garcia v. Skar, 626 B.R. 750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021) (Section 157(b)(5) applies
to sexual harassment, assault and battery and gender -motivated violence); Batista v.
Redondo Constr. Corp., 2006 Bankr.LEXIS 3831 (Bankr. D. P.R. 2006) (age
discrimination claims are personal injury torts).
The Debtor gives short shrift to the leading case in this district of In re Smith, 389
B.R. 902 (Bk. D. Nev. 2008), regarding the power of the Bankruptcy Court to hear
“personal injury tort claims.” In Smith, Judge Bruce Markell ruled that the defamation
claims asserted in that action were “personal injury tort claims” but that the provisions of
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 10 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-8- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
Section 157(b)(5) were “not jurisdictional in the sense that they deprive this court of the
power to hear the matter.” Id. at 906. That is, Section 157(b)(5) only spoke to the
allocation of cases between the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court and the ability of
a Bankruptcy Court to enter a final judgment on a particular matter. Id. at 910. In Smith,
Judge Markell held that the claimant Sheldon Adelson had in fact waived his right to
object to the Bankruptcy Court entering final orders in his action against the Debtor where
he had already filed a non-dischargeability action and a proof of claim in the bankruptcy
proceeding. Id. Had there not been a waiver, his personal injury tort claim would have
been tried in the District Court after pre-trial proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court.
Ms. Servin submits that her claims are personal injury tort claims requiring trial
either before the U.S. District Court in California—where the Employment Action is
pending—or before the District Court in Nevada—where this bankruptcy case is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) [“The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful
death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or
in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district
court in which the bankruptcy case is pending”]. Having this Bankruptcy Court conduct all
pre-trial proceedings only to have the trial take place in the District Court is a tremendous
waste of resources, and, contrary to the Debtor’s arguments, not the most efficient way to
proceed.
Yet, regardless of whether it constitutes a personal injury tort claim, the
Bankruptcy Court may estimate Ms. Servin’s claim for purposes of the Debtor’s proposed
Plan. As indicated above, Ms. Servin’s claim should be estimated at the Debtor’s
maximum liability under the Policy of $100,000 for purposes of proposing a Plan of
Reorganization. See In re Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp., 85 B.R. 545, 549 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
1987) (in estimating personal injury tort claims, “‘the bankruptcy court has the right and
duty only to estimate these [tort] claims for the purpose of confirming a plan under
Chapter 11, and that is a core proceeding’ … We likewise conclude that the bankruptcy
court below had the right and duty to estimate these claims and did not violate the
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 11 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-9- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
[claimants’] right to a trial by jury for the tort claim in doing so”).
APPLICATION OF THE CURTIS FACTORS DEMONSTRATES CAUSE
EXISTS TO GRANT SERVIN’S LIFT STAY MOTION
As provided in the Motion and contrary to the Debtor’s contentions, the following
Curtis factors – adopted from the case of In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795, 799-800 (Bankr. D.
Utah 1984) and endorsed in the Ninth Circuit by In re Kronemyer, 405 B.R. 915, 921
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) – weigh in favor of granting Ms. Servin’s Motion.
(1) Whether the relief will result in a partial or contemplate resolution of
the issues in dispute.
The Debtor contends that granting relief will not resolve all of the issues between
the Debtor and Ms. Servin because the Motion only seeks liquidation of her claim, and not
how much the Insurer will have to pay on account of that claim. (Opposition at ¶¶ 34-38).
The Debtor’s argument is unavailing because what the Insurer may have to pay to Ms.
Servin is irrelevant for plan purposes. Again, the reason is that the Debtor can estimate
Servin’s claim at the maximum amount the Debtor may be liable for under the EPLI
Policy, $100,000. What the Insurer pays to Servin in excess of the $100,000 liability is
irrelevant for the Debtor’s forthcoming Plan. (Opposition at ¶ 7).2
(2) Lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case.
The Debtor acknowledges that “[a]lthough litigation costs to a bankruptcy estate do
not necessarily compel a bankruptcy court to deny stay relief” (Opposition at ¶ 40),
“[g]ranting relief here would greatly impact and interfere with this bankruptcy case.”
(Opposition at ¶ 41). Debtor’s argument is unavailing.
2 It should be noted that the Debtor has projected that it will pay only a minimal dividend to unsecured creditors under the Plan. (Opposition at ¶ 15). Such a de minimus payment to unsecured creditors makes the Debtor’s fervent opposition to the Motion that much more puzzling.
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 12 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-10- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
As discussed above, granting the lift stay Motion to permit continued prosecution of
Servin’s claims in the non-bankruptcy forum, while permitting an estimation of Servin’s
claim for plan purposes at $100,000, is the most efficient and cost-effective means to
proceed.
The Debtor is represented by counsel retained by the Insurer in the Employment
Action, which representation would continue regardless of whether the Debtor can pay
defense costs up to the S.I.R amount. And, under California law and the provisions of the
Insurance Policy, the Insurer cannot deny coverage based on the Debtor’s inability to pay
the retention amount.
(4) Whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the
particular cause of action with the expertise to hear such cases.
Debtor argues that “the California District Court is not a special tribunal with
unique expertise to hear Servin’s claim” because “Federal District Courts are courts of
general jurisdiction in diversity cases.” (Opposition ¶ 45).
First, Ms. Servin originally commenced her employment action against the Debtor
in Los Angeles Superior Court. The Debtor then removed the action to Federal District
Court.
Second, contrary to the Debtor’s blanket assertion, California courts are uniquely
positioned to hear and apply California law to California causes of action for harm caused
within the state of California.
Third, Ms. Servin is entitled to a jury trial on her claims, which has already been
scheduled to begin in February 2022. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of granting the
Motion.
(5) Whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial
responsibility for defending the litigation.
As the Debtor concedes, this may be the most important non-exclusive Curtis
factor. (Opposition at ¶ 47). The Insurer is obligated to provide a defense and is liable for
any amounts in excess of $100,000 under the Policy. To that end, defense counsel has
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 13 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-11- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
already been retained by the Insurer and the Insurer has assumed the defense of the Debtor
in the non-bankruptcy forum. (Opposition at ¶¶ 8 & 10). The insurance coverage letter
attached as Exhibit 3 to the Debtor’s Motion establishes that Zurich has in fact assumed
the defense and liability, up to the limits of the Policy, for Ms. Servin’s claims.
Whether the Debtor has the ability to continue paying Lewis Brisbois is not a
relevant factor because the Insurer is obligated to provide a defense regardless of ability to
pay. (See, supra, Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal.2d at 275; Foster-Gardner, Inc., 18
Cal.4th at 869; Cal. Ins. Code § 11580(b)(1) (insolvency of the insured will not release the
insurer from the payment of damages for injury sustained or loss occasioned during the life
of such policy”); see also Salvato Declaration at Exhibit 4: Debtor’s Policy, Coverage Part
C at p. 11, § E.) Importantly, the Debtor is better able to focus on confirming its Plan
because of the Insurer providing coverage and defense to the Debtor.
(7) Whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of
other creditors, the creditors’ committee and other interested parties.
The Debtor acknowledges “[a]ssuming Servin is determined to have a liquidated
claim against Splash, it will be simply a general unsecured claim with, at most, a potential
for recovery from Zurich under the Policy.” (Opposition ¶ 50). This is essentially correct—
Ms. Servin seeks a recovery, but only $100,000 can come from the Debtor and any
additional amounts are to be paid by the Insurer. But instead of stopping here, the Debtor
paints an unrealistic doomsday scenario with sapped resources and high administrative
expense costs. (Id. at ¶¶ 50 & 52).
To the contrary, if the Debtor defends this action in the Bankruptcy Court, then the
result would be greater administrative expenses (in that Debtor’s counsel would be
required to get up to speed, consult with prior employment counsel, review the complaint
and case file, object to claim, conduct discovery, etc.). But the opposite is true based on the
defense coverage already provided under the Policy.
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 14 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-12- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
(10) The interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical
determination of litigation for the parties.
Judicial economy is served by granting relief to prosecute against insurance
proceeds while at the same time estimating Servin’s claim at $100,000 for plan purposes.
This would permit the Debtor to propose a plan by the June 21 deadline with a fixed
amount for Ms. Servin’s claim (contrary to the procedure requested by the Debtor to
require a claim to be filed while the Debtor goes through the long process of litigating her
claim in Bankruptcy Court).
The Debtor readily concedes that “[c]onducting an expedited and economical
claims estimation of Servin’s claims furthers the underlying policies behind the enactment
of Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code as well, because it will allow for a quick, cost-
effective reorganization as intended by Congress.” (Opposition at ¶ 59). We agree. The
Debtor can estimate Ms. Servin’s claim at any time, and that estimation proceeding is no
impediment to allowing her to seek recovery from applicable insurance.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Motion, cause exists to lift the
automatic stay so that Ms. Servin may continue prosecution of her California state law
causes of action in a California federal court.
Dated: June 1, 2021 SALVATO BOUFADEL LLP
/s/ Gregory M. Salvato By: ___________________________
Gregory M. Salvato Joseph Boufadel
Attorneys for Creditor and Movant ESMERALDA SERVIN
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 15 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-13- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
DECLARATION OF GREGORY M. SALVATO, ESQ.
I, Gregory Salvato, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California. I am a
Certified Specialist in Bankruptcy Law by State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization. I am also the managing partner of Salvato Boufadel LLP, and counsel for
unsecured creditor Esmeralda Servin (“Servin”) in this bankruptcy case. I have been
admitted pro hac vice to appear before this Court. [Dkt. No. 170].
2. I submit my declaration in support of Ms. Servin’s Reply in support of
Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Continue Prosecution of Action in Non-
Bankruptcy Forum. The following facts are known to me of my own personal knowledge
and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the truth thereof.
3. Ms. Servin is the plaintiff in the pending employment litigation entitled,
Esmeralda Servin v. Splash News and Picture Agency, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-
07131-MCS-E, before the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. She is the movant in the lift stay Motion scheduled to be heard in this Court on
June 7, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. [Dkt. Nos. 121-124]. She is also an unsecured creditor in the
Debtor’s bankruptcy case.
Debtor’s EPLI Insurance Policy
4. On May 21, 2021, Debtor Splash News & Picture Agency, Inc. (“Debtor”)
filed its Opposition to Ms. Servin’s lift stay Motion. [Dkt. Nos. 155-56]. The Debtor’s
Opposition, however, did not include a copy of the insurance policy at issue, Employment
Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) Policy (Policy No. EPL 6541325-10) (“Policy”)
issued by Zurich American Insurance Company.
5. On May 21, 2021, I emailed Debtor’s counsel, Michael Fielding, requesting
a copy of the Policy. On May 24, Mr. Fielding responded to my email with a copy of the
Debtor’s Policy.
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 16 of 37
Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay - Nonbankruptcy Forum
-14- In re Splash News & Picture Agency, LLC, Debtor Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11377-ABL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of my email correspondence
with Debtor’s counsel Michael Fielding, Esq. on May 21 and May 24, 2021, which
includes a copy of the Policy.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 1, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Gregory M. Salvato _______________________________
Gregory M. Salvato
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 17 of 37
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 18 of 37
From: Fielding, MichaelTo: Gregory SalvatoSubject: RE: Splash News / Sevrin - Request for copy of insurance policyDate: Monday, May 24, 2021 3:43:45 PMAttachments: 2019-2020 EPLI Policy - Coverage Part C (CA).pdf
Gregory, Attached is a copy of the policy that Splash received. It is my understanding that ADP and/or Zurichdid the redaction on the first page as it appears that is specific to ADP. The 100k SIRs that werementioned in Splash’s opposition to the stay relief motion are at Item VIII.B (p. 9) of the policy. Mike Michael D. FieldingPartnerDirect: [email protected]
From: Gregory Salvato <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 1:04 PMTo: Fielding, Michael <[email protected]>Cc: Joseph Boufadel <[email protected]>Subject: Splash News / Sevrin - Request for copy of insurance policy [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
To Michael Fielding, Esq. Mr. Fielding- Please send me a copy of the insurance policy providing coverage in thismatter: Zurich EPL 6541325-10 Thank you for your courtesy and prompt response. GMS> GREGORY M. SALVATO, ESQ. SALVATO BOUFADEL LLP Business litigation, bankruptcy, and real estate matters777 So. Figueroa Street, Suite 2800Los Angeles, CA 90017Telephone: (213) 484-8400
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 19 of 37
Cell Phone: (213) 400-4424E-mail: [email protected]
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 20 of 37
U-ADP_D-100-A NJ (06/17) (05/2019)
Page 1 of 2
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 21 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 1 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 22 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 2 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 23 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 3 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 24 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 4 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 25 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 5 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 26 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 6 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 27 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 7 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 28 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 8 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 29 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 9 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 30 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 10 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 31 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 11 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 32 of 37
U-ADP-101-A NJ Draft (06/17) ADP PEO Manuscript Policy – Coverage Part C
Page 12 of 12
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 33 of 37
EPL 6541325-10 08/01/2019 08/01/2020 08/01/2019 ---- ----
<Endorsement 1 Form Number> Page 1 of 1
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 34 of 37
<Endorsement 2 Manuscirpt> Page 1 of 1
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 35 of 37
<Endorsement 3 Manuscript> Page 1 of 1
40
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 36 of 37
Case No. 21-11377-abl Certificate of Service Page 1 of 1 (Nevada Bankruptcy Court)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Salvato Boufadel LLP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California, and I am over the age of
eighteen years of age and not a party to the matter concerning which service of process
was made. My business address is 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles,
California 90017.
On June 1, 2021, I served the following document(s) on the parties stated below:
1. Esmeralda Servin’s Reply in support of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Continue Prosecution of Action in Non-Bankruptcy Forum; Declaration of Gregory M. Salvato, Esq. in Support
(BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”)) Pursuant to controlling General Order(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s), the foregoing document(s) will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On June 1, 2021, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case and determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the e-mail address indicated below:
ROBERT E. ATKINSON Counsel for the Debtor [email protected],
[email protected] MICHAEL D FIELDING Counsel for the Debtor
[email protected], [email protected];[email protected];[email protected]
EDWARD M. MCDONALD [email protected] TIMOTHY W NELSON Subchapter V Trustee [email protected] STRETTO Claims Agent [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected] U.S. TRUSTEE - LV - 11 [email protected]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 1, 2021, at Irvine, California.
/s/ Joseph Boufadel _______________________
Joseph Boufadel
Case 21-11377-abl Doc 171 Entered 06/01/21 21:40:40 Page 37 of 37