# Oral argument — In re: Sobayo > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/argument%3A70190 ## Record - **Collection:** Oral argument - **Document type:** Oral argument - **Published:** May 20, 2020 ## Text Alright, looks like we have everybody so let's get going. Mr. Sobayo, do you wish to reserve some time for rebuttal? Again, this is your chance to have the last word. Okay, basically what I want to do is I have two motions that I want to present if the court will grant me that permission and then just state what I really want the court to do for me if that is possible. That's possible. The only thing I'm asking about at the beginning though is do you want to have, what's going to happen is you have the first chance to talk and then Ms. Boer, is that how we say it? Yes, Ms. Boer, correct. Ms. Boer will speak and you as the appellant can have the last word but you have to reserve time now. Alright, so do you want to reserve some time out of your 15 minutes? Okay, let's have 7 minutes for me to offer the motions and then I'll reserve 8 minutes. Alright, so 8 minutes and again you can see the clock, that will help you and then whenever you want to stop, we'll try to alert you around 8 minutes and then we'll let you have the last word. So you may begin. Okay, basically a lot of things have happened, Your Honor, since I filed the appeal. Two interlocutory appeals are pending before this court and then a total of state court and state appeal are as related cases are also pending. What I would like to do that I think is done is to have a motion to continue this oral argument until such a time that all these other impacting related cases are heard, especially the interlocutory appeals and then also have a motion for stay of all proceedings as appropriate. Well, the status of your cases right now, I'm just going to stop you for a minute and say this is the time to argue your appeal. We don't usually get motions in the middle of oral argument and I don't think we're prepared to rule on it. So we understand that you would like us to wait to render our decision. We will consider that request. But there's nothing for us to stay as I understand it because your case has been dismissed. So there is no pending bankruptcy. There's nothing we could state in the bankruptcy world. That's the world we operate in and to the extent you want to have things stayed in a state court action or something else, you need to go to state court and do that. We don't control those courts. So I'm going to ask you to proceed with your argument. We understand you're requesting that we hold this. I will talk to my colleagues, but I don't see anything we could stay here. So you may continue. Okay. What I'm actually arguing is that I want all the three cases, bankruptcy cases that have been dismissed, the first Chapter 11 case and the two Chapter 13, all to be reversed because the lawyers I got messed things up for me. And as well as I didn't get any help from the judges, I mean from the judge when I asked for help because I had lawyers paid them, but they weren't doing the job. And so they caused all my cases to be messed up and my financial life, my wife and children are all in ruin and I'm 74 years old at the moment. So what I'm trying to get these courts to do for me, if it's possible, is to reverse all those and then allow me to convert my case to the new Chapter 11 in a Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019, H.R. 3311, which became law in August of 2019. If that is done, I think, and then of course, within, to give me at least 120 days to make sure I get a lawyer or law firm that are loyal enough to help me clean up all this mess. I didn't cause the problem. The other people that brought all this about started all this I'm just trying to find a way in the law to help me get back on track, so to say, in terms of reinstating all those bankruptcies that were dismissed, convert it to this Chapter 11, which is the appropriate chapter that should have been filed. But they didn't do it. So that is my main objective. All the other problems, I think I'll deal with it separately because of the narrow situation that you've told me about. I just want help in straightening these things out so that I don't die in the middle of all these things. I sustained a lot of things. I've had a heart attack and I'm still taking a lot of medicine. Things are very bad. I'm not criticizing the judge or the standing trustee or the US trustee that I taught by law. They could have helped because I had the right people that I taught and paid to help me navigate my way through all this. They abandoned me in the beginning and I almost died. So what I really want, that is exactly what I want. If the court can really convert my case and let me get help in having it reorganize my life, that is the main thing that I want. It's very difficult for me to explain because it has become very complex. There's 14 related cases to this case. I don't quite know how I can do it other than if this court has it in their power and the law can support what I'm paying everybody that I owe. If I owe anybody because I have enough income, enough asset that can make this happen. I hired lawyers and they've taken money and they're gone. And I've not been able to do anything about it because I don't have enough money yet to do that. And I'm facing all these 14 different related cases. So in short, there's nothing much that I really want to say in this argument other than that. And then to also find a way to stay if it's possible so that I don't just have more and more problems. You know, that is really what I really want to do. So I will stop at that point. That is really my argument, my point. That's why I went to the bankruptcy court. I've got creditors that were trying to steal property I bought. The former owner that I bought the property from, they never gave me possession. And they are still trying to afflict me. I filed involuntary case in order to get him to court and it's still a mess. So I'll stop at this moment and let the other lawyer talk and maybe gather my composure and emphasize what I'm trying to get this court to do for me. Alright, thank you very much Mr. Svayab. Okay, counsel. Good afternoon. Jane Boer on behalf of Devin Durnberg, the Chapter 13 trustee. While I am so sympathetic to Mr. Ceballos' issues with his property, the fact remains that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed this case that is in front of you right now because the debtor did not make his ongoing direct mortgage payments to mortgage lenders under the terms of his plan. The plan that he proposed with the assistance of counsel specifically required that he make direct post-petition payments on a monthly basis. And under the general order enacted by the Northern District of California, he was required when he chose to make those payments directly to report at certain points along the course of his bankruptcy that he was current with those payments. He didn't do that and so the evidence. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the judge specifically asked Mr. Ceballos if he had made all of those payments and he had to concede that he had not. And at that point when it was clear that he had not made all of the payments that he was supposed to, the judge properly exercised his discretion to dismiss this case for cause. Mr. Ceballos asked you to actually reverse three bankruptcy cases in his first two and this one and of course the first two he did not file a notice of appeal from either of those. Those two cases are not in front of you right now. Only his third case that was dismissed based on his failure to make his ongoing direct mortgage payments and that much he conceded was accurate. The judge in this case tried to help Mr. Ceballos. He gave Mr. Ceballos an order that granted the trustee's motion to dismiss but effective several weeks forwards and he and Mr. Ceballos talked about it at the hearing and the judge said, you've got some time, use it. If you want different counsel, you have a few weeks to get different counsel and talk about what, if anything, you can do through this case or a new case and that didn't happen. Mr. Ceballos did on his own file a motion to vacate the dismissal but he offered nothing, no reason to actually vacate it. He didn't show that his mortgage payments were current. He didn't show that he was in the process of getting new counsel. He didn't offer the judge any reason to vacate his earlier dismissal of the case and while my heart is sad for Mr. Ceballos, based on the issues that are before this court, it was properly dismissed. It was well within the bankruptcy court's discretion. The bankruptcy court applied the proper legal standard. He did not misconstrue any facts. Did the bankruptcy court enter any order that would bar Mr. Ceballos from filing another case, for example, a Chapter 11 SBRA case like he's mentioning? He did not, Your Honor. In fact, as part of his oral ruling, he explained to Mr. Ceballos that he might want that this particular case wasn't offering Mr. Ceballos much protection because there was no automatic stay. The automatic stay was not extended. This was Mr. Ceballos' third bankruptcy case and he told Mr. Ceballos he might want to consider filing a different case. I don't think that he specified a Chapter 11. Well, they actually did discuss on the record. The judge said he couldn't recommend what chapter. Because of the cost, right? Right, but he wasn't sure whether a 7 would accomplish what Mr. Ceballos wanted, that there were eligibility issues with Chapter 13 and that the only other one available was Chapter 11. Now, at that point in time, the small business bankruptcy wasn't available. It is now, but it was not at that particular time. He did try his hardest to explain to Mr. Ceballos what his options might be and to really sort of help him as much as a judge can help someone. He couldn't be Mr. Ceballos' advocate and tell him what to do. All he could do was to say what chapters were available and then suggest that Mr. Ceballos might want to use that three-week period that he gave him to find counsel that he could speak with and that they could choose an appropriate remedy from there. So, no, nothing that the court ordered prevented Mr. Ceballos from filing a new case. All right. So, I know that Mr. Ceballos also indicated, and I just want to address this very briefly, that he felt like the trustee didn't protect him in this process. I just want to emphasize that I think the trustee did exactly what she was supposed to in this case. She has a duty to monitor cases, and when it's not being performed, to bring a motion to dismiss and for the judge to take that under consideration, and that's what she did. Again, Mr. Ceballos had counsel. The trustee couldn't ethically work with Mr. Ceballos outside of that, so the trustee really administered this case just as she would any other Chapter 13 case and did nothing that was out of line here. But I think, while sympathetic, what happened legally was within the bankruptcy court's discretion, and that's the issue that's before the three of you today. All right. Thank you. Any questions, Judge Spraker? None. Thank you very much. All right. Judge Ferris, anything further? No, thanks. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Mr. Ceballos, you have some time left. You have seven minutes and eleven seconds, so you may give us some additional points. I'll just start out by saying that one of the points here is, even though you have three judges here today, and we're all wearing black robes, we are limited in what we can do by rules. And one of those rules is we are very limited by the particular issue that you timely placed in front of us. So you're asking us to correct a number of things, and that, as you said, if we can do it under the law. And I just need you to know that what we're going to be considering is this narrow appeal, which was from the reconsideration order, actually. So there was a dismissal, and then there was a subsequent request to vacate the dismissal, and the judge denied that, and you appealed for that. So that's really what, I call it my range of motion, and I think people tend to think that just because we're judges we can do whatever we want. Ah, we can't. And our families will tell us that, the law will tell us that, any number of people will tell us that. So I need you to understand that in deciding how to use your last few minutes. So you may proceed. Thank you. Well, I do understand everything that the counsel said, and that the judge is saying. So, what I really think the problem is, is that the problem that the trustee saw, and that the judge agreed to, had I, competent lawyer, lawyer, that I kept telling the lawyer, you can fix all this problem, you filed the wrong chapter for me, and you do something. They don't even, they ignored me. So that part is what I'm thinking, if that is wrong for a licensed lawyer, that was paid twice to file chapter 13 for me. Then the court should be able to help me to clear that problem, because that's where the problem came from. I couldn't do much. That's why I got a lawyer. And I kept telling the lawyer, help me file something to save this, to save it, talk to me, do this with the trustee, do that, do that. They ignored me. That is my main, that is the biggest point, because if my lawyer has done the right things that the law allows, this wouldn't have happened. I should have filed, he could have filed 11 for me, and then perhaps converted, or something. They ignored me. See, the fact is that the first 13 that went, that the lawyer mixed up, they got more money from me, and they filed another one. But they shouldn't have done that. In talking to many other lawyers, they told me that. So that is the problem that I'm thinking. Things went wrong, they didn't file it correctly. I paid for it, but they didn't do it. I couldn't be the lawyer, so he did everything. And then the judge denied it, of course, because he didn't do the right thing. But I told the judge, and I was thinking, oh, since I could not represent myself well, there will be a way to at least save me, because all I want to do is to fix the problem. But, so, if there is any way in the law that this can be done, so that I can file the right chapter, that would be the right thing for me. You understand Mr. Ceballo, Judge Ferris' point? You're looking back. We are taking no position, nor did the bankruptcy judge take a position, on your ability to move forward. Five minutes after you get off this call, and to consider a new case. So we cannot do very much about what happened in the past, perhaps. You may be able to move forward with a new case. There is no constraint placed on your ability to file that new kind of bankruptcy, at least in terms of what this panel has done, and will do, and at least from the record we have in this case, the judge didn't put any constraints on you. So keep that in mind. Again, we are limited in what we can do. We can only look at one thing. You have much more power to affect your life from this point forward. Thank you very much. I cannot speak clearly at this point. I understand. I have a lot of cases. I will do my best. Thank you. All right. Well, we hope things go well for you, and again, whatever we send, consider that you have more control than I think maybe you think you have. And so with that, I want to thank you for your submission to the court, thank counsel for her argument. This will be taken under submission, and we'll issue a decision soon. And we are now going to be in recess. The judges will reconvene on the conference line to discuss the cases further. Thank you very much. Thank you. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/argument%3A70190. Public record. Not legal advice.