UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
December 6, 2007
ALL-AMERICAN CHEVROLET, INC., PLAINTIFF,
JOHN DE SANTIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
THE PLAINTIFF bringing this action against the defendant John De Santis and several other defendants, inter alia, to recover damages for trademark infringement (dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.); and the other defendants asserting cross claims against De Santis (dkt. entry no. 27); and the plaintiff moving on November 9, 2007, for summary judgment in its favor as to the claims asserted against John De Santis (dkt. entry no. 57); but
DE SANTIS petitioning for bankruptcy protection pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 4, 2007, see Bankr. Pet. No. 07-27860 (KCF), dkt. entry no. 1, Pet.; and De Santis listing this action on the Statement of Financial Affairs, under the heading for suits and administrative proceedings, id., Stmt. Affairs, at 2; and the Bankruptcy Court appointing a trustee on December 6, 2007, id., dkt. entry no. 5; and
IT APPEARING that the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of the continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor that was commenced before the bankruptcy petition was filed, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1); and it appearing that the plaintiff, and other defendants as cross-claimants, can - before the Bankruptcy Court - (1) move for relief from the automatic stay, and (2) file proofs of claim, see 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d), 501; and thus the Court intending to (1) deny the motion for summary judgment without prejudice, (2) stay and administratively terminate this action, and (3) direct the parties to proceed before the Bankruptcy Court;*fn1 and
THE COURT advising the parties that an order administratively terminating an action is not the equivalent of a dismissal of a complaint with prejudice, and is issued pursuant to the Court's inherent power to control the docket and in the interests of judicial economy, see Delgrosso v. Spang & Co., 903 F.2d 234, 236 (3d Cir. 1990) (stating administrative termination not final determination, as it "permits reinstatement and contemplates the possibility of future proceedings", and "does not purport to end litigation on the merits"); and for good cause appearing, the Court will issue an appropriate order.