Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10

Case 2:09-ap-01433-BR Doc 28 Filed 07/13/10 Entered 07/13/10 17:13:53 Desc
Main Document Page 1FOR9
of COURT USE ONLY
Attorney or Party Name, Address, Telephone & FAX Numbers and California State Bar Number
Penelope Parmes (SBN 104774) Kathryn T. Anderson (SBN 240660)
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 641-5100
Facsimile: (714) 546-9035
pparmes@rutan.com
Attorney for Virgie Arthur

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re:
BONNIE GAYLE STERN

Debtor(s).

Virgie Arthur CHAPTER: 7
Plaintiff(s). CASE NO.: 2:09-BK-11995-BR

ADVERSARY NO.:
2:09-AP-01433-BR
vs.

DATE: July 27, 2010
Bonnie Gayle Stern
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
Defendant(s). PLACE: 1668

JOINT STATUS REPORT
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE 7016-1(a)(2)
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

The parties submit the following JOINT STATUS REPORT in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1(a)(2):

A. PLEADINGS/SERVICE:

1. Have all parties been served? Yes No

2. Have all parties filed and served answers to the complaint/ Yes No
counter-complaints/etc.?

3. Have all motions addressed to the pleadings been resolved? Yes No

4. Have counsel met and conferred in compliance with Local Bankruptcy Yes No
Rule 7026-1?

5. If your answer to any of the four preceding questions is anything other than an unqualified “YES,” then please
explain below (or on attached page):

(Continued on next page)

This form is optional. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

January 2009 F 7016-1.1
American LegalNet, Inc.
www.FormsWorkflow.com

Main Document Page 2 of 9
Joint Status Report - Page 2 F 7016-1.1
In re CHAPTER: 7
STERN
CASE NO.: 2:09-BK-11995-BR

Debtor(s). ADVERSARY NO.: 2:09-AP-01433-BR

B. READINESS FOR TRIAL:

1. When will you be ready for trial in this case?
Plaintiff Defendant
In approximately 10 to 12 months.* This case should be tried prior to the 10-12 mos
stated by plaintiff. A default was entered. Defendant
cannot participate in the state proceeding.
2. If your answer to the above is more than four (4) months after the summons issued in this case, give reasons
for further delay.
Plaintiff Defendant
Per the Court's July 30, 2009 order, this action has The case will not be tried in the state court by
been stayed pending entry of judgment as to both September 2010; the trial judge was removed; the
liability and damages in District Court of Harris appt of a computer examiner is subject to three
County, Texas, 80th Judicial District Cause No. appeals and if overturned may result in judgments
2008-24181, Virgie Arthur v. Howard K. Stern et al., being set aside; trial is likely to be years away
currently set for trial on September 27, 2010. The
state court case continues to be delayed due to the
mandamus proceedings pending in the court of
appeals. The appeals Court recently ruled in favor
of the appellants, however, plaintiff may file a motion
for re-hearing. Trial will not proceed so long as
those proceedings are pending. Additionally, special
appearances are pending in the state court case for
defendants Larry Birkhead and Howard Stern, who
are nonresidents contesting Texas jurisdiction.
Those special appearances must be heard before
the state court case can proceed to trial. Plaintiff
believes the losing party on the special appearance
motions will file an interlocutory appeal, staying the
state court proceedings, in which case trial will not
go forward on September 27, 2010. In addition,
Howard Stern has stated that he will seek a
continuance if he is asked to appear at trial.

3. When do you expect to complete your discovery efforts?
Plaintiff Defendant
In approximately 8 to 10 months.* If permitted to do so, it could be completed in 3
months time.

4. What additional discovery do you require to prepare for trial?
Plaintiff Defendant
Written discovery, depositions, expert discovery.* If plaintiff is required to make the 7026 disclosures a
small number of interrogatories, document requests
and the deposition of the plaintiff will be required.
Neither party has exchanged documents.
Plaintiff will make all Rule 7026-1 disclosures when
the stay on these proceedings is lifted.


January 2009 F 7016-1.1

C. TRIAL TIME:

1. What is your estimate of the time required to present your side of the case at trial (including rebuttal stage if
applicable)?
Plaintiff Defendant
Approximately 10 to 14 days.* 2 days

2. How many witnesses do you intend to call at trial (including opposing parties)?
Plaintiff Defendant
Approximately 12.* 3 to 4

3. How many exhibits do you anticipate using at trial?
Plaintiff Defendant
Approximately 100.* Less than 20 documents

*These estimates assume a continued trial date, and
trial in this action as to both liability and damages.



January 2009 F 7016-1.1

In re CHAPTER: 7
STERN
CASE NO.: 2:09-BK-11995-BR


D. PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE:

A pre-trial conference is usually conducted between a week to a month before trial, at which time a pre-trial order will
be signed by the court. [See Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1.] If you believe that a pre-trial conference is not necessary
or appropriate in this case, please so note below, stating your reasons:

Plaintiff Defendant

Pre-trial conference X (is)/ (is not) requested. Pre-trial conference X (is)/ (is not) requested.
Reasons: Reasons:

Plaintiff Defendant

Pre-trial conference should be set after: Pre-trial conference should be set after:

(date) January 1, 2011 (date) January 1, 2011

E. SETTLEMENT:

1. What is the status of settlement efforts?
The parties have been unable to reach a resolution of the dispute.

2. Has this dispute been formally mediated? Yes No
If so, when?

3. Do you want this matter sent to mediation at this time?

Plaintiff Defendant
Yes No Yes No


January 2009 F 7016-1.1

In re CHAPTER: 7
STERN
CASE NO.: 2:09-BK-11995-BR


F. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS RE TRIAL: (Use additional page if necessary.)

Plaintiff's Comments:

These proceedings have been stayed pending the entry of judgment as to both liability and damages against
Debtor in District Court of Harris County, Texas, 280th Judicial District Cause No. 2008-24181, Virgie Arthur v.
Howard K. Stern et al.

As set forth in the parties' September 22, 2009 joint status report, on or about July 17, 2009, the Texas state court
issued orders finding that defendant willfully abused the discovery process and destroyed evidence, sufficient to
show a lack of merit of her special appearance motion, and support the striking of her pleadings and the entry of a
default judgment against her as to liability only. True copies of the Court's orders were submitted with the parties'
September 22, 2009 joint status report. On or about September 30, 2009, January 6, 2010, and April 7, 2010, this
Court entered orders continuing each status conference approximately 90 days.

Pursuant to the Court's July 30, 2009 order, a true copy of which is submitted herewith as Exhibit A, plaintiff has
submitted herewith a proposed order continuing the status conference an additional 90 days.

District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2008-24181, Virgie Arthur v. Howard K. Stern et al., has been
th th
transferred from the 280 Judicial District to the 80 Judicial District of Harris County. The 280th District Court
was re-designated as the domestic violence court for Harris County. All of the cases that were pending in that
court were transferred to other civil district courts. Trial against all defendants, including Bonnie Stern as to
damages only, currently is set for September 27, 2010. However, the state court case continues to be delayed
due to the mandamus proceedings pending in the court of appeals. The appeals Court recently ruled in favor of
the appellants, however, plaintiff may file a motion for re-hearing. Plaintiff disputes that the appeals court made a
judicial finding that the computer examiner's findings were "null and void." Two special appearances pending in
the state court must be heard before the state court case can proceed to trial. As mentioned above, the losing
party on a special appearance has a right to an interlocutory appeal, which automatically stays the trial. Plaintiff
believes the losing party will appeal, in which case trial will not go forward on September 27, 2010, as currently
scheduled. In addition, Howard Stern has filed a notice stating that he will seek a continuance of the trial date if
he is asked to appear.

Defendant's Comments:
The computer examiner who issued the report claiming discovery abuse in fact abused his power and the court of
appeal has now ruled that the order appointing the examiner was in excess of the court's authority and all of the
findings of the examiner have now been deemed null and void. As a result, the case will not be tried in
September 2010 and is not likely to be tried for years given the other defendants in the case, including TMZ. The
issues as to Ms. Stern are extremely limited and Ms. Stern does not believe that the default judgment, which was
improperly entered against her as a sanction, will constitute collateral estoppel in the Bankruptcy Court. As a
result, regardless of whether a trial on damages ultimately results in an award of damages, the issues regarding
dischargeability will all have to be tried before the Bankruptcy Court. Ms. Stern is not permitted to participate in
any trial or introduce evidence in the State Court. Additional comments may be made by Debtor's Counsel.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 13, 2010
Name: Kathryn T. Anderson
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Firm Name
Attorney for: Virgie Arthur

By: /s/ Kathryn T. Anderson


January 2009 F 7016-1.1

Dated: 7/13/2010

Law Office of Susan I. Montgomery
Firm Name

By: /s/ Susan I. Montgomery

Name: Susan I. Montgomery

Attorney for: Bonnie Gayle Stern


January 2009 F 7016-1.1

In re CHAPTER: 7
STERN
CASE NO.: 2:09-BK-11995-BR


NOTE: When using this form to indicate service of a proposed order, DO NOT list any person or entity in Category I.
Proposed orders do not generate an NEF because only orders that have been entered are placed on a CM/ECF docket.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:
611 Anton Boulevard, Fourteenth Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

JOINT STATUS REPORT LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document described as 7016-1(a)(2)
will be served or was served (a) on the judge
in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d), and (b) in the manner indicated below:

I. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”) - Pursuant to controlling General
Order(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s) (“LBR”), the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to
the document. On July 13, 2010 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary
proceeding and determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at
the email addressed indicated below:

Kathryn T. Anderson: kanderson@rutan.com
Elissa D. Miller: CA71@ecfcbis.com, MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com
Susan I. Montgomery: susan@simontgomerylaw.com
Penelope Parmes: pparmes@rutan.com
United States Trustee: ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov
Service information continued on attached page

II. SERVED BY U.S. MAIL OR OVERNIGHT MAIL (indicate method for each person or entity served):
On July 13, 2010 I served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the last known address(es) in this
bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States
Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and/or with an overnight mail service addressed as follow. Listing the judge here constitutes
a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.
The Honorable Barry Russell (By Mail) Theodore K. Roberts (By Mail) Susan Montgomery (By Mail)
U:.S. Bankruptcy Court - Los Angeles Division 5603 Huntinton Drive North Law Office of Susan Montgomery
Roybal Federal Building, Ctrm 1668 Los Angeles CA 90032 1925 Century Park East
255 E. Temple Street Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Los Angeles CA 90067

III. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (indicate method for each person or entity
served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on I served the following person(s)
and/or entity(ies) by personal delivery, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method) by facsimile transmission
and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later
than 24 hours after the document is filed.


January 2009 F 7016-1.1


I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
July 13, 2010 Angie Spielman /s/ Angie Spielman
Date Type Name Signature


January 2009 F 7016-1.1

In re CHAPTER: 7
STERN
CASE NO.: 2:09-BK-11995-BR


ADDITIONAL SERVICE INFORMATION (if needed):


January 2009 F 7016-1.1

Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10

Similar to Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10 (20)

More from JRachelle

More from JRachelle (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10