JAMES A. PAONE, as court appointed receiver of the property of DEBORAH PECK, Plaintiff,
GEORGE C. PECK, et al., Defendants.
MARY L. COOPER, District Judge.
THIS ACTION was removed from New Jersey state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ("Section") 1332. (See dkt. entry no. 1, Notice Of Removal; see also id., Ex. A, Compl.) This Court will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Frederik Cornelis Komen secured a monetary judgment in New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County ("Monmouth Superior") against Deborah Peck on July 11, 2011 ("July 2011 Judgment"). (See Compl., Ex. A, 11-4-11 Am. J. at 1-2 (referring to July 2011 Judgment).) The July 2011 Judgment "remains in effect, and continues to be enforceable according to its terms". (Id. at 2.)
When Deborah Peck did not satisfy the July 2011 Judgment, Monmouth Superior - upon Komen's motion - named James A. Paone as receiver of New Jersey property in which Deborah Peck has an ownership interest to aid Komen "in executing [the July 2011] [J]udgment", by an order dated October 10, 2012 ("State Appointment Order"). (Compl., Ex. B, 10-10-12 Order at 1; see dkt. entry no. 8, Fasano Certification, Ex. B, 6-13-12 Komen Br. In Supp. Of Mot. For Post-J. Relief In Aid Of Execution.) New Jersey statutory law generally authorizes New Jersey state courts to appoint and oversee a receiver to aid in the execution of their outstanding judgments. See N.J.S.A. §§ 2A:17-65, 2A:17-66, 2A:17-67. Accordingly, in view of the State Appointment Order, Paone (1) is under the authority and direction of Monmouth Superior in pursuing the July 2011 Judgment, and (2) must "make report in writing to the court". N.J.S.A. § 2A:17-68.
Paone then brought this action against George C. Peck and Deborah Peck, seeking sale of a parcel of their real estate pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 2A:56-2, with Deborah Peck's share of the proceeds to go toward satisfaction of the July 2011 Judgment. (See Compl. at 2-3.) But George C. Peck challenges the validity of the July 2011 Judgment, asserting that "[n]either [Paone] nor... Komen hold a valid and enforceable judgment lien against the interest of George C. Peck in one half of the subject Property, and therefore may not sell George C. Peck's interest to satisfy the obligation of any co-tenant without the affirmative consent of George C. Peck, which consent has been continuously withheld". (Notice Of Removal, Ex. B, Answer of George C. Peck at 2.)
Deborah Peck is not seeking bankruptcy protection, but is named in several proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Florida Bankruptcy Court"). In In re CLSF III IV, Inc., she is named as an interested party, as she is the incorporator, sole officer, and registered agent of the debtor entity therein. See Bankr. S.D. Fla. No. 12-30081, dkt. entry no. 23, Notice; id., dkt. entry no. 144, Notice. By an order dated January 22, 2013, the Florida Bankruptcy Court preliminarily enjoined her from selling or transferring assets that might be subject to oversight in that bankruptcy proceeding. Id., dkt. entry no. 145, 1-22-13 Order at 5.
In Menotte v. Behl Corp., which is an adversarial proceeding, Deborah Peck is named as a defendant and is alleged to have engaged in fraud concerning the debtor entity in In re CLSF III IV, Inc. See Bankr. S.D. Fla. No. 12-1889, dkt. entry no. 1, Compl. The Florida Bankruptcy Court preliminarily enjoined her from selling or transferring assets that might be subject to oversight by the Florida Bankruptcy Court by an order dated September 25, 2012 ("September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order"). Id., dkt. entry no. 40, 9-25-12 Order. The Florida Bankruptcy Court stated in the September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order that "[a] person or entity who claims a right, title, or interest in property subject to the injunctions imposed by... this Order that asserts that such right, title, or interest is improperly impaired by this Order may apply to this [Bankruptcy] Court to lift the Injunction regarding such identified property or property interests". Id. at 6. The Florida Bankruptcy Court thereafter permanently enjoined Deborah Peck from selling or transferring assets that might be subject to its oversight. Id., dkt. entry no. 105, 3-13-13 Order at 4.
In Van Egmond v. Peck, which is an adversarial proceeding, Deborah Peck is named as a defendant and is alleged to be an interested party in yet another bankruptcy proceeding. See Bankr. S.D. Fla. No. 13-1123, dkt. entry no. 4, Am. Compl.
Deborah Peck and George C. Peck, as the removing defendants, have violated the Local Civil Rules by failing to specifically notify this Court about the bankruptcy proceedings. See L.Civ. R. 11.2 (stating party must certify whether matter in controversy is subject of any other action pending in any court, and, if so, party must identify each such action and all parties thereto). But the record before this Court contains a letter brief filed by Deborah Peck in Monmouth Superior, wherein she points out (1) the bankruptcy proceedings, (2) the September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order, and (3) that the State Appointment Order would improperly direct a receiver "to take control over the same personal and business property that is effected by the Court Order in the Bankruptcy Court in Florida". (Dkt. entry no. 14, Grant Certification, Ex. B, 9-19-12 Letter Br. at 2.) Also, the State Appointment Order is annexed to the Notice Of Removal, and it states that Monmouth Superior:
is aware of the [September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order]. This Order is not intended to conflict with or supersede the [September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order]. The Receiver shall comply with the [September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order] including but not limited to [the portion] thereof, regarding assets that were or may have been improperly impaired by the [September 2012 Bankruptcy Injunction Order].
(10-10-2012 Order at 3.) This Court is uncertain whether the parties made Monmouth Superior aware of other orders issued ...