{"id":"court_ctb_206_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":206,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"JUDGMENT","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | |--------------------------------|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| In re:       |            | CHAPTER 11             |\n|--------------|------------|------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, |            | Case No. 22-50073(JAM) |\n|              | Debtor.    |                        |\n| Rui Ma,      |            |                        |\n|              | Movant     | Contested Matter       |\n| v.           |            |                        |\n| Ho Wan Kwok, | Respondent | April 12, 2022         |\n|              |            |                        |\n\n# **MOTION OF RUI MA FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY TO ALLOW PENDING STATE COURT LITIGATION TO PROCEED**\n\nRui Ma (\"**Movant**\") hereby moves (this \"**Motion**\") for an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A**, granting relief from the automatic stay in order to permit her personal injury lawsuit that is pending in state court to proceed to judgment against the debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui (the \"**Debtor**\"), and respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**<sup>1</sup>\n\n1. The Movant, a creditor and personal injury claimant against the Debtor, seeks relief from the automatic stay solely to liquidate her claims to finality, but not to collect on any judgment against the Debtor or his estate except through the bankruptcy process. Movant commenced litigation against the Debtor in 2017 asserting personal injury claims based on more than a year of horrific abuse by the Debtor. Discovery in the State Court Litigation has been completed and the case is on the trial calendar, but has now been stayed due to the Debtor's commencement of this Chapter 11 Case. This Court lacks jurisdiction to liquidate Movant's Claim and Movant seeks her \"day in court.\" As set forth herein, ample cause exists for relief from the automatic stay to allow the State Court Litigation to proceed to a final judgment. Accordingly, the Motion should be granted.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND PREDICATES FOR RELIEF**\n\n2. This Court has jurisdiction over this motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G). Venue in this Court over the Motion is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory predicates for the relief requested herein are 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (O), 28 U.S.C § 157(b)(5), 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001(a).\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **A. Rui Ma's Claims**\n\n3. Movant was assaulted, battered, terrorized, imprisoned, and raped by the Debtor between April 2015 and November 2016.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Preliminary Statement have the meanings ascribed to such terms below.\n\n4. After escaping from the Debtor in 2016 and returning to her home in China, Movant reported these incidents to the Chinese police. Since then, the Debtor has retaliated against Movant by posting photos of the Movant and her parents online, and identifying personal information such as her address.\n\n5. In 2017, Movant commenced a civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (\"**State Court**\"), Index No. 158140/2017 (the \"**State Court Litigation**\"), against the Debtor and Golden Spring New York Ltd. (\"**Golden Spring**\"), asserting claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment against the Debtor and related claims for negligence and violations of applicable New York state and city workplace laws and regulations against Golden Spring. In all, Movant asserted eleven causes of action arising from her personal injuries caused by the Debtor (collectively, \"**Movant's Claim**\").\n\n6. A true and correct copy of the Movant's complaint in the State Court Litigation (the \"**Complaint**\") is attached as Exhibit A to the *Declaration of Carollynn H.G. Callari in Support of Motion of Rui Ma for Relief from The Automatic Stay to Allow Pending State Court Litigation to Proceed* (the \"**Callari Decl.**\"), filed contemporaneously herewith.\n\n7. By the Complaint, Movant is seeking damages not less than \\$20 million, as well as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The State Court Litigation has substantially progressed. Discovery commenced in 2018 and has since been completed, including all party document discovery and depositions, and the Note of Issue has been filed, placing the State Court Litigation on the trial calendar.\n\n8. Although the State Court Litigation is on the trial calendar, the Debtor has moved in the State Court to permit further discovery from third parties. This issue, and related motions to quash by the Movant, are fully briefed and submitted to the State Court. In addition, on February 15, 2022, just hours before commencing his bankruptcy case, Debtor filed a motion to vacate the Note of Issue. This motion to vacate is largely duplicative of the Debtor's pending motion to extend discovery and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to create a false appearance of open motion practice in the State Court Litigation. Notably, because the basis for the Debtor's motions and requested additional discovery is his ludicrous allegation – raised at the eleventh hour, years after the commencement of discovery – that the Movant is acting at the behest of an agent of the CCP intent on harassing him. This allegation (which seems to be the Debtor's standard response to any adversaries) is false, as well as being factually impossible, and the Movant submits that these filings by the Debtor are nothing more than a delay tactic intended to delay his day of reckoning for his deplorable conduct.\n\n9. The State Court Litigation has been stayed as a result of the Debtor's commencement of this Chapter 11 Case.<sup>2</sup>\n\n### **B. The Chapter 11 Case**\n\n10. On February 15, 2022 (the \"**Petition Date**\"), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"**Bankruptcy Code**\") commencing this chapter 11 case (the \"**Chapter 11 Case**\"). Since that time, the Debtor has remained a debtor-in-possession pursuant to sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n11. No trustee or examiner has yet been appointed in this Chapter 11 Case, although on March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee (\"**UST**\") filed a Motion for Order Directing Appointment of an Examiner, or in the alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"**Examiner/Trustee Motion**\"). The Examiner/Trustee Motion is\n\n<sup>2</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, Movant reserves all of her rights to proceed against non-debtor defendant Golden Spring.\n\nscheduled for hearing on April 13, 2022, and according to the UST's Amended Proposed Order at n. 1 (ECF No. 116), the Debtor has agreed to the Court's directing the UST to appoint an examiner in this case. On March 21, 2022, a committee of unsecured creditors (the \"**Committee**\") was officially appointed by the United States Trustee.\n\n12. The Debtor's list of 20 largest unsecured creditors filed with the petition, and as amended, identifies Movant as the second largest non-insider creditor in this case. (ECF Nos. 4, 20).\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n13. By this Motion, Movant requests entry of an order granting relief from the automatic stay for the limited purpose of permitting Movant to prosecute the State Court Litigation to a final judgment and liquidate Movant's Claim. Movant is not seeking, and agrees not, to enforce any judgment against the Debtor or assets of the estate without first obtaining a further order of the Court. Due to the projected fast-moving pace of this Chapter 11 Case, Movant also requests the Court waive the fourteen (14) day stay provided in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001(a)(3).\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n14. The Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[o]n the request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the [bankruptcy] court *shall* grant relief from the stay . . . (1) for cause . . . .\" *See* 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1)(emphasis added).<sup>3</sup> When determining whether \"cause\" exists to lift the stay for pre-petition litigation, courts in this jurisdiction consider the following factors:\n\n- 1. whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;\n- 2. lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;\n- 3. whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary;\n\n<sup>3</sup> As a creditor, Movant is a party in interest. See 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b).\n\n- 4. whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action;\n- 5. whether the debtor's insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending [the action];\n- 6. whether the action primarily involves third parties;\n- 7. whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors;\n- 8. whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination;\n- 9. whether movant's success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor;\n- 10. the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation;\n- 11. whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and\n- 12. the impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\n\n*Sonnax Indus., Inc. v. Tri Component Prods. Corp. (In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.)*, 907 F.2d 1280, 1286 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\n15. Not all of the *Sonnax* factors are relevant in every case, and \"cause\" is a broad and flexible concept that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. *Spencer v. Bogdanovich (In re Bogdanovich)*, 292 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Additionally, each element does not need to be accorded equal weight. *In re Keene Corp.*, 171 B.R. 180, 183 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994). The movant has the initial burden to demonstrate \"cause\" exists to grant relief from the stay. *See Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1285. The application of the *Sonnax* factors to the facts and circumstances of this case demonstrates that cause exists for lifting the automatic stay.\n\n16. **(***Sonnax* **factor no. 1)**: First, the Movant's Claim against the Debtor in the State Court Litigation consists of claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. *See* Callari Decl., Exhibit A (State Court Litigation Complaint). These are personal injury tort claims. Such claims are specifically excluded from matters in which bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments and\n\norders, or that may be estimated by bankruptcy courts for distribution purposes. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (O). Indeed, bankruptcy courts do not have jurisdiction to try personal injury tort claims. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5). Movant demands a trial by jury in the State Court Litigation and does not consent to trial in this Court. Accordingly, stay relief is necessary to permit a resolution of Movant's Claim. This factor strongly weighs in favor of finding cause to lift the stay as requested herein.\n\n17. **(***Sonnax* **factor no. 2)**: Proceeding with the State Court Litigation will not interfere with this Chapter 11 Case, but will assist in its administration, by allowing Movant's Claim against Debtor to progress from disputed and unliquidated to a liquidated claim that is based on a final judgment as determined by the State Court.<sup>4</sup> Movant's Claim is the second largest non-insider unsecured claim on the Debtor's list of 20 largest unsecured creditors. (ECF No. 20). Liquidating Movant's Claim would substantially facilitate establishing the pool of claims against the Debtor. In particular, since the Debtor has represented his intention to pay claims in full, it is in all parties' interests to have Movant's Claim liquidated. Allowing Movant's Claim to be adjudicated also should expedite the Court's ability to determine dischargeability issues in any adversary proceeding to be commenced by Movant.<sup>5</sup> This Court cannot liquidate Movant's Claim. Further, since the Debtor professes to not having a job or earning a living, and not having any business to manage, the administration of this Chapter 11 Case will not be adversely impacted by any burden\n\n<sup>4</sup> Movant notes that the Debtor's list of top creditors and his schedules identify Movant's Claim as disputed but not contingent and liquidated in the amount of \\$20,000,000. As set forth above, Movant is seeking damages in an amount not less than \\$20 million, plus punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Accordingly, Movant's Claim is not liquidated in the amount of \\$20,000,000.\n\n<sup>5</sup> Movant intends to commence an adversary proceeding to confirm the non-dischargeability of Movant's Claim pursuant to Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\nthat might be borne by the Debtor personally as the State Court Litigation proceeds to trial. Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of granting the Motion.\n\n18. (*Sonnax* **factors nos. 3 and 4)**: Factor 3 is neutral as the other proceeding does not involve the debtor as a fiduciary. Factor 4 weighs in favor of lifting the stay since the State Court has the necessary expertise by jurisdictional empowerment to render a ruling on Movant's Claim, while this Court is not authorized to do so.\n\n19. (*Sonnax* **factors nos. 5, 6, 7**): Although the Debtor does not have any insurance that has assumed responsibility for defending the State Court Litigation, the same counsel is representing the Debtor and Golden Spring in the State Court Litigation and appears to be funded on an ongoing basis – *including in the post-petition period* – by funds from co-defendant Golden Spring.<sup>6</sup> Movant submits that the course of conduct establishes that the Debtor's defense costs will continue to be borne by Golden Spring and not by the estate.<sup>7</sup> Further, although the State Court Litigation does not *primarily* involve third parties, it does substantially involve Golden Spring, against whom Movant also desires to continue the State Court Litigation and hereby also seeks the Court's confirmation that the stay does not apply to such non-debtor entity. Based on the Debtor's professed poverty, it is reasonable to presume that any judgment in the State Court Litigation could be satisfied by the non-debtor defendant Golden Spring. Regardless, the relief requested herein is limited to allowing the State Court Litigation to proceed to final judgment.\n\n<sup>6</sup> In particular, the Debtor's Statement of Financial Affairs discloses that the Debtor paid to his counsel in the State Court Litigation \\$89,508.91 on February 16, 2022. Docket No. 77 at 21. This unauthorized post-petition payment was in addition to \\$156,627.07 previously paid to such counsel in the 90 days prior to the commencement of this case. In light of the Debtor's other statements in this case, the source of such funding is reasonably presumed to be Golden Spring.\n\n<sup>7</sup> To the extent that the Debtor or Golden Spring might assert that any such funding of defense costs is merely a loan from Golden Spring, the Movant submits that any such \"loan\" from an insider on noncommercial terms and with no prospect whatsoever for repayment, is readily characterizable as equity or equitably subordinated to the claims of non-insider creditors.\n\nOnce liquidated, Movant would not be allowed to enforce any such judgment against the Debtor or his estate without first obtaining a further order of the Court. Accordingly, allowing the State Court Litigation to proceed will not prejudice other creditors. These factors, therefore, are neutral or weigh in favor of granting the stay relief requested in the Motion.\n\n20. **(***Sonnax* **factors nos. 8 and 9)**. Factors 8 and 9 are neutral or weigh in favor of stay relief in that there is no genuine basis for Movant's Claim arising from the State Court Litigation to be subject to equitable subordination and Movant's success in the State Court Litigation would not result in a voidable judicial lien.\n\n21. **(***Sonnax* **factors nos. 10, 11, 12)**. The parties were in active litigation before the State Court prior to the Debtor's commencement of this Chapter 11 Case. Discovery was completed, the Note of Issue was filed and the matter was put on the trial calendar. Judicial economy will be promoted if the Court lifts the stay because Movant's Claim arises exclusively under state law and the State Court is best positioned to resolve such matters. Indeed, the Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the claims at issue in the State Court Litigation, which are personal injury claims. Further, while Movant has suffered and continues to suffer from her horrific abuse by the Debtor, he continues to live as a billionaire and ignore the orders of other courts and his fiduciary duties to the estate. Consideration of judicial economy, the balance of harms, and the interests of justice, all strongly weigh in favor of Movant and allowing the State Court Litigation to proceed.\n\n22. Accordingly, cause exists for the Court to grant relief from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to allow the State Court Litigation to proceed to final judgment, and the Motion should be granted.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, Movant respectfully requests that the Court enter an order modifying the automatic stay to allow the State Court Litigation to proceed to final judgment against the Debtor and granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: April 12, 2022 */s/ Kristin B. Mayhew*\n\nKristin B. Mayhew **MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP** 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com)\n\n- and -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari (*pro hac vice*) David S. Forsh (*pro hac vice*) **CALLARI PARTNERS LLC** One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com) [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\n*Attorneys for Rui Ma*","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），案件编号：22-50073(JAM)\n债务人。\nRui Ma（马蕊），\n动议人 争议事项\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），被申请人 2022年4月12日\n\nRUI MA（马蕊）申请解除自动中止以允许待决州法院诉讼继续进行的动议\n\nRui Ma（马蕊）（“动议人”）特此提出动议（本“动议”），请求法院作出实质上与本动议所附附件 A 形式相同的裁定，准予解除自动中止，以允许其在州法院待决的人身伤害诉讼继续推进，直至对债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵）（“债务人”）作出判决，并恭敬陈述如下：\n初步陈述 1\n\n1. 动议人作为对债务人享有债权和人身伤害索赔请求权的债权人，寻求解除自动中止，其唯一目的是为了最终清算确定其债权金额，而非通过破产程序以外的途径对债务人或其破产财产执行任何判决。动议人于 2017 年对债务人提起诉讼，基于债务人长达一年多的骇人虐待提出人身伤害索赔。州法院诉讼中的证据开示已完成，案件已列入审判日程，但由于债务人启动了本第 11 章案件，该诉讼目前已被中止。本法院对清算确定动议人的索赔缺乏管辖权，动议人寻求属于她的“出庭受审之日”。如本动议所述，存在充分的事由准予解除自动中止，以允许州法院诉讼推进至终审判决。因此，本动议应予准许。\n管辖权及救济依据\n\n2. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，本法院对本动议拥有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) 和 (G)，本事项属于核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本法院对本动议的审判地管辖是适当的。本动议所请求救济的法定依据为 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) 和 (O)、28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)、11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) 以及《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 4001(a) 条。\n背景\nA. Rui Ma（马蕊）的索赔\n\n3. 在 2015 年 4 月至 2016 年 11 月期间，动议人遭到了债务人的侵权恐吓、殴打、恐吓折磨、非法监禁和强奸。\n\n1 在本初步陈述中使用但未作其他定义的首字母大写术语，具有下文赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n4. 动议人于 2016 年逃离债务人并返回其在中国的住所后，向中国警方报案。自那时起，债务人通过在网络上发布动议人及其父母的照片，并公开其住址等个人信息，对动议人进行报复。\n\n5. 2017 年，动议人在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）（“州法院”）对债务人和 Golden Spring New York Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）提起民事诉讼，案号为 Index No. 158140/2017（“州法院诉讼”），针对债务人主张侵权恐吓、殴打、故意施加精神痛苦、过失施加精神痛苦以及非法监禁的索赔，并针对 Golden Spring 主张过失及违反适用的纽约州和纽约市工作场所法律法规的相关索赔。动议人总共提出了十一项因债务人造成其人身伤害而产生的诉讼由头（统称“动议人索赔”）。\n\n6. 动议人在州法院诉讼中的起诉书（“起诉书”）的真实无误副本，作为与本动议同时提交的《Carollynn H.G. Callari 支持 Rui Ma 申请解除自动中止以允许待决州法院诉讼继续进行的动议的声明》（“Callari 声明”）的附件 A 附后。\n\n7. 通过该起诉书，动议人寻求不少于 2000 万美元的赔偿金，以及惩罚性赔偿金、律师费和诉讼费用。州法院诉讼已取得实质性进展。证据开示程序于 2018 年启动，此后已全部完成，包括所有当事人的文件证据开示和宣誓录供证言，且案件审理排期通知（Note of Issue）已提交，使州法院诉讼进入了审判日程。\n\n8. 尽管州法院诉讼已列入审判日程，但债务人已在州法院提出动议，请求允许自第三方处进行进一步的证据开示。该问题以及动议人提出的相关撤销动议，均已完成简要抗辩书状的提交并呈递给州法院。此外，在 2022 年 2 月 15 日，即启动其破产案件的数小时前，债务人提交了撤销案件审理排期通知的动议。该撤销动议在很大程度上与债务人待决的延长证据开示动议重复，且看起来无非是企图在州法院诉讼中制造仍有待决动议程序的虚假表象。值得注意的是，债务人提出动议并请求额外证据开示的依据，是他荒谬的指控——在证据开示开始数年后的最后关头才提出——即动议人是听命于意图骚扰他的中共代理人行事。这一指控（似乎是债务人针对任何对手的标准应对手段）不仅虚假，而且在事实上是不可能的，动议人认为债务人的这些文件提交无非是一种拖延战术，意在推迟因其可悲行径而面临清算的时刻。\n\n9. 由于债务人启动了本第 11 章案件，州法院诉讼已被中止。2\nB. 第 11 章案件\n\n10. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（“申请日”），债务人根据《美国法典》第 11 编（《破产法典》）第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请书，启动了本第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）。自那时起，根据《破产法典》第 1107 和 1108 条，债务人一直作为占有债务人运作。\n\n11. 尽管 United States Trustee（美国破产受托人）（“UST”）于 2022 年 3 月 19 日提交了《关于请求裁定指定审查官的动议，或作为替代方案，关于请求裁定指定第 11 章破产受托人的动议》（“审查官/受托人动议”），但本第 11 章案件中尚未指定任何受托人或审查官。该审查官/受托人动议\n\n2 为免疑义，动议人保留对非债务人被告 Golden Spring 继续进行诉讼的一切权利。\n\n定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日举行听证，且根据 UST 的修正拟定裁定第 1 条注（ECF 编号：116），债务人已同意由法院指示 UST 在本案中指定一名审查官。2022 年 3 月 21 日，无担保债权人委员会（“委员会”）由美国破产受托人正式指定成立。\n\n12. 随破产申请提交及修正后的债务人前 20 大无担保债权人名单中，将动议人列为本案中第二大非内部人债权人。（ECF 编号：4, 20）。\n请求的救济\n\n13. 通过本动议，动议人请求法院作出裁定准予解除自动中止，其有限目的在于允许动议人将州法院诉讼推进至终审判决并清算确定动议人索赔的金额。动议人不寻求、并同意在未事先获得本法院进一步裁定的情况下，不对债务人或破产财产执行任何判决。由于预计本第 11 章案件进展迅速，动议人亦请求法院免除《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 4001(a)(3) 条规定的十四（14）天中止期。\n论证\n\n14. 《破产法典》规定：“经利害关系方请求并在通知和听证后，[破产]法院应当……(1) 基于正当事由……准予解除中止……”。见 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1)（强调为后加）。3 在判定是否存在为破产申请前诉讼解除中止的“正当事由”时，本司法管辖区的法院会考量以下因素：\n\n- 1. 解除中止是否会导致问题得到部分或全部解决；\n- 2. 是否与破产案件缺乏关联或不会对其造成干扰；\n- 3. 另一诉讼程序是否涉及作为受托人的债务人；\n\n3 作为债权人，动议人属于利害关系方。见 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b)。\n\n- 4. 是否已设立具有必要专业知识的专门审判庭来审理该诉讼由头；\n- 5. 债务人的保险人是否已承担抗辩[该诉讼]的全部责任；\n- 6. 该诉讼是否主要涉及第三方；\n- 7. 在另一审判地进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；\n- 8. 源自另一诉讼的判决债权是否受制于衡平法上的从属求偿原则；\n- 9. 动议人在另一程序中的胜诉是否会导致形成可被债务人撤销的司法留置权；\n- 10. 司法经济性以及迅速和经济地解决诉讼的利益；\n- 11. 各方当事人在另一程序中是否已做好审判准备；以及\n- 12. 中止对各方当事人的影响及损害的权衡。\n\nSonnax Indus., Inc. 诉 Tri Component Prods. Corp. (In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.), 907 F.2d 1280, 1286 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\n15. 并非所有 Sonnax 因素在每个案件中都具有相关性，且“正当事由”是一个广泛而灵活的概念，必须依个案具体判定。Spencer 诉 Bogdanovich (In re Bogdanovich), 292 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir. 2002)（引文省略）。此外，无需给予每个要素同等的权重。In re Keene Corp., 171 B.R. 180, 183 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)。动议人承担证明存在准予解除中止之“正当事由”的初步举证责任。见 Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1285。将 Sonnax 因素适用于本案的事实和情况表明，存在解除自动中止的正当事由。\n\n16. （Sonnax 因素第 1 项）：首先，动议人在州法院诉讼中对债务人的索赔包括侵权恐吓、殴打、故意施加精神痛苦、过失施加精神痛苦以及非法监禁的诉求。见 Callari 声明，附件 A（州法院诉讼起诉书）。这些属于人身伤害侵权索赔。此类索赔被明确排除在破产法院可以作出终审判决和\n\n命令的事项之外，也不得由破产法院出于财产分配目的进行估算。28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (O)。事实上，破产法院对审理人身伤害侵权索赔没有管辖权。28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)。动议人在州法院诉讼中要求由陪审团审判，且不同意在本法院进行审判。因此，解除中止对于解决动议人索赔是必要的。该因素强烈支持认定存在如本动议所请求的解除中止的正当事由。\n\n17. （Sonnax 因素第 2 项）：继续进行州法院诉讼不会干扰本第 11 章案件，反而将通过允许动议人对债务人的索赔从有争议且未清算状态推进为基于州法院终审判决所确定的已清算债权，从而协助本案的破产管理。4 动议人索赔在债务人前 20 大无担保债权人名单中是第二大非内部人无担保债权。（ECF 编号：20）。清算确定动议人索赔将实质上有利于确立针对债务人的债权总池。特别是，鉴于债务人已表示有意全额清偿债权，清算确定动议人索赔符合各方当事人的利益。允许对动议人索赔进行裁决，还应加快本法院在动议人将提起的任何对席诉讼程序中对债务免除性问题作出判定的能力。5 本法院无法清算确定动议人索赔。此外，鉴于债务人声称自己没有工作、不谋生计，也没有任何企业需要管理，本第 11 章案件的管理不会因任何负担而受到不利影响\n\n4 动议人（Movant）指出，债务人（Debtor）的主要债权人名单及其财务状况明细表中，将动议人的债权认定为有争议但非附条件的，且已确定数额为 $20,000,000。如上所述，动议人请求的赔偿金额不少于 2000 万美元，外加惩罚性赔偿、律师费和诉讼费用。因此，动议人的债权并非已确定数额为 $20,000,000 的债权。\n\n5 动议人拟根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 523 条提起对抗性诉讼（adversary proceeding），以确认动议人债权的不可免除性。\n\n随着州法院诉讼（State Court Litigation）推进至审判阶段，该等可能由债务人个人承担的费用。因此，该因素极为有利于准予本动议。\n\n18.（Sonnax 因素第 3 项和第 4 项）：因素 3 处于中立状态，因为另一程序不涉及作为受托人的债务人。因素 4 有利于解除自动中止，因为州法院拥有管辖权赋权所必需的专业能力，可以对动议人的债权作出裁决，而本法院无权作出该等裁决。\n\n19.（Sonnax 因素第 5、6、7 项）：尽管债务人没有任何已承担州法院诉讼抗辩责任的保险，但同一名代理律师在州法院诉讼中同时代表债务人和 Golden Spring（金泉公司），并且该律师似乎正在持续——包括在提出破产申请后期间——获得来自共同被告金泉公司的资金支持。6 动议人主张，该行为过程表明债务人的抗辩费用将继续由金泉公司承担，而非由破产财产承担。7 此外，尽管州法院诉讼主要不涉及第三方，但确实实质性涉及金泉公司；动议人亦希望针对金泉公司继续进行州法院诉讼，并据此同时请求本法院确认自动中止不适用于该非债务人实体。基于债务人所自称的贫困状况，可以合理推定州法院诉讼中的任何判决均可由非债务人被告金泉公司清偿。无论如何，本文书所请求的救济仅限于允许州法院诉讼推进至最终判决。\n\n6 具体而言，债务人的《财务状况说明书》（Statement of Financial Affairs）披露，债务人于 2022 年 2 月 16 日向其在州法院诉讼中的代理律师支付了 $89,508.91。案卷号（Docket No.）77 第 21 页。这笔未经授权的申请后付款，是此前在本案开始前 90 天内向该律师支付的 $156,627.07 之外的款项。鉴于债务人在本案中的其他陈述，该资金的来源可被合理推定为金泉公司。\n\n7 在债务人或金泉公司可能主张任何此类抗辩费用资金仅为来自金泉公司的借款的范围内，动议人主张，来自内部人、按非商业条件提供且完全没有偿还前景的任何此类“借款”，很容易被定性为权益，或在衡平法上劣后于非内部人债权人的债权。\n\n一旦数额确定，在事先未获得本法院进一步命令的情况下，动议人将不被允许对债务人或其破产财产执行任何此类判决。因此，允许州法院诉讼继续进行不会损害其他债权人的利益。因此，这些因素处于中立状态或有利于准予本动议所请求的中止救济。\n\n20.（Sonnax 因素第 8 项和第 9 项）。因素 8 和因素 9 处于中立状态或有利于中止救济，因为动议人源于州法院诉讼的债权完全没有依据适用衡平劣后规则，且动议人在州法院诉讼中的胜诉不会导致产生可撤销的司法留置权。\n\n21.（Sonnax 因素第 10、11、12 项）。在债务人提起本《破产法》第 11 章案件（Chapter 11 Case）之前，各方当事人已在州法院进行积极的诉讼。证据开示程序已完成，争点备忘录（Note of Issue）已提交，案件已被列入审判日程表。如果本法院解除中止，将有利于实现司法经济，因为动议人的债权完全依据州法产生，且州法院最适合解决此类事项。事实上，本法院对州法院诉讼中系争的属于人身伤害索赔的主张缺乏管辖权。此外，虽然动议人遭受且仍在遭受债务人对她的可怕虐待，但他却继续过着亿万富翁的生活，无视其他法院的命令以及他对破产财产的受托义务。综合考量司法经济、损害平衡以及司法公正利益，所有因素均极大地倾向于动议人并支持允许州法院诉讼继续进行。\n\n22. 据此，存在根据《破产法典》第 362(d)(1) 条由本法院准予免除自动中止的正当理由，以允许州法院诉讼推进至最终判决，本动议应当获得准予。\n\n结论\n\n为此，动议人谨请求本法院作出命令，变更自动中止以允许州法院诉讼推进至针对债务人的最终判决，并准予法院认为公正且适当的该等其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 4 月 12 日 签名：Kristin B. Mayhew\n\nKristin B. Mayhew MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com]\n\n- 以及 -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（特别出庭代理 / pro hac vice） David S. Forsh（特别出庭代理 / pro hac vice） CALLARI PARTNERS LLC One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 [ccallari@callaripartners.com] [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nRui Ma（马蕊）的代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2866,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:27:01"}