Ara Eric Hunanyan v. Jeff Huberts

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: CV 22-02664 JFW (RAO) Date: June 30, 2023

Title: Ara Eric Hunanyan v. Jeff Huberts et al.

Present: The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Donnamarie Luengo N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Ara Eric Hunanyan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a

civil complaint (“Complaint”) against Jeff Huberts, Lindsey Huberts (collectively, the “Huberts”),

and Nancy Zamora (“Zamora”). Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. On October 6, 2022, the Huberts filed a motion

to dismiss. Dkt. No. 27.

“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte” for failure to state a claim under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), particularly if it is clear that the claimant cannot possibly win

relief. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Seismic Reservoir 2020,

Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 335 (9th Cir. 2015). For the reasons set forth below, it appears

that Plaintiff cannot possibly win relief on his federal claim. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause

by July 14, 2023 why the Court should not recommend dismissal of this action.1

1 On October 28, 2022, Zamora filed a “Notice of Removal of District Court Civil Action to the

United States Bankruptcy Court.” Dkt. No. 30. However, it does not appear that the removal has

any effect. Several courts have found that 28 U.S.C. § 1452 does not permit removal of cases from

federal district court to bankruptcy court. See, e.g., In re Curtis, 571 B.R. 441, 449 (B.A.P. 9th

Cir. 2017) (finding that it would be “illogical to interpret the bankruptcy removal statute to

authorize removal from a district court to the district court in the same district” and that permitting

removal would raise constitutional questions as it would “impermissibly undermine the district

court’s power to refer matters to the bankruptcy court (or to withdraw the reference)”); see also In

re Mitchell, 206 B.R. 204, 209-10 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1997) (finding the proper procedure is for a

party to move the district court to refer the lawsuit to the bankruptcy court). Other courts in this

district treat a purported notice of removal of a district court case to bankruptcy court as having

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: CV 22-02664 JFW (RAO) Date: June 30, 2023

Title: Ara Eric Hunanyan v. Jeff Huberts et al.

I. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The claims in this case are based on the sale of a property in Los Angeles County (the

“Gault Property”). Compl. ¶¶ 1, 51. Plaintiff resided at the Gault Property starting in 2002. Id. ¶

23. In 2020, a family court judgment ordered that the Gault Property and two other properties

purchased by Plaintiff be sold with proceeds divided. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff later found out that assets

were concealed in the family court case and appealed the judgment. Id. ¶ 28.

On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy petition and claimed the Gault Property

as his homestead residence. Id. ¶ 19. Zamora was the bankruptcy trustee. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff

alleges that there was a conflict of interest in Zamora serving as the trustee. Id. Plaintiff alleges

that Zamora improperly dismissed the appeal of the family court judgment. Id. ¶¶ 35-37.

On August 17, 2021, the Gault Property was transferred by Zamora to the Huberts. Id. ¶

51.

Plaintiff brings state law claims for quiet title and cancellation of instrument against the

Huberts, constructive fraud against Zamora, civil conspiracy to commit fraud against the Huberts

and Zamora, and a federal claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Zamora

for violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights. Id. ¶¶ 47-90. Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the deed

of trust for the Gault Property and damages. Id. at 14.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Law Claim

Plaintiff brings a single claim under federal law: a claim for “civil rights violation under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq.” Compl. ¶¶ 88-90. Plaintiff alleges that Zamora, acting as a Chapter 7

trustee, sold Plaintiff’s properties without proper due process. Id.

“no practical effect.” LFP IP LLC v. Midway Venture LLC, No. SACV 10-01546 DOC (MLGx),

2010 WL 4395401, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010); In re Halvorson, No. 8:18-cv-00525 JVS,

2018 WL 6728484, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (“Because there is no statutory or constitutional

authority to remove a district court case to bankruptcy court, a notice of removal seeking to do so

is a nullity and has no legal effect.”). The Court will follow this line of cases and proceed

accordingly.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: CV 22-02664 JFW (RAO) Date: June 30, 2023

Title: Ara Eric Hunanyan v. Jeff Huberts et al.

1. Zamora is not a state actor.

Zamora is a trustee in a federal bankruptcy case. Plaintiff may not bring a claim under

Section 1983 against Zamora because Section 1983 claims may only be brought against state

actors. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim is subject to dismissal.

To the extent the Complaint can be construed as bringing a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S 388 (1971) (“Bivens”), there is

likely no Bivens remedy for damages against Zamora. The three contexts in which the Supreme

Court has recognized Bivens remedies are for unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth

Amendment, gender discrimination under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and an

Eighth Amendment violation for failure to provide adequate medical treatment. See Ziglar v.

Abassi, 582 U.S. 120, 131 (2017) (citing Bivens; Davis v. Passman, 422 U.S. 228 (1979); Carlson

v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)). After Carlson, the Supreme Court has not approved of an implied

damages remedy under the Constitution in any other context. Id. at 131.

Plaintiff’s due process claim does not fall under any of these three recognized contexts.

See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484 n. 9 (1994) (“[A] Bivens action alleging a violation of

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment may be appropriate in some contexts, but not in

others.”). Extending Bivens is the “rare exception.” Mejia v. Miller, 61 F.4th 663, 669 (9th Cir.

2023). Thus, even if Plaintiff’s claims against Zamora could be construed as being brought under

Bivens, any such claim for damages would likely fail.

2. Zamora is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

Zamora is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for her actions taken as a bankruptcy trustee

in the federal bankruptcy case. See Lonneker Farms, Inc. v. Klobucher, 804 F.2d 1096, 1097 (9th

Cir. 1986) (finding a bankruptcy trustee was entitled to “derived judicial immunity because

[trustee] is performing an integral part of the judicial process”); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438,

442 (9th Cir. 1978) (noting that judicial immunity has been extended to trustees in bankruptcy).

Plaintiff’s federal law claim is based on Zamora’s distribution of the Gault Property as a

bankruptcy trustee. Zamora is immune to any claim for damages based on that conduct.

3. The Barton doctrine precludes Plaintiff’s claims against Zamora.

Under the Barton doctrine, “a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before

it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: CV 22-02664 JFW (RAO) Date: June 30, 2023

Title: Ara Eric Hunanyan v. Jeff Huberts et al.

bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer’s official capacity.” In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421

F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court is considered a different forum than the

bankruptcy court for purposes of the Barton doctrine. Blixseth v. Brown, 470 B.R. 562, 566 (D.

Mont. 2012) (citing Kashani v. Fulton, 190 B.R. 875 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)). Here, there is no

indication that Plaintiff has obtained leave of the bankruptcy court before initiating this action

against Zamora.

The Court finds that the above deficiencies could not be remedied by amendment. Plaintiff

is ordered to show cause, in writing, as to why this Court should not recommend that his federal

law claim against Zamora be dismissed without leave to amend.

B. State Law Claims

For the reasons noted above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s federal law claim against

Zamora is subject to dismissal without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are brought

under state law. The basis for subject matter jurisdiction over such claims is supplemental

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because the Court intends to recommend that Plaintiff’s

federal law claim be dismissed with prejudice, the Court will further recommend that supplemental

jurisdiction over the state law claims be declined, and that the state law claims be dismissed

without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Dismissal of the state law claims will render the

Huberts’ motion to dismiss moot.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Magistrate Judge should not

recommend that his complaint be dismissed for the reasons stated above. Plaintiff shall file his

response no later than July 14, 2023.

If Plaintiff fails to file a timely response to this Order as directed above, the action

will additionally be subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey

Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

Initials of Preparer dl