State of Nevada v. Bernard-Ex

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-2114-JAD-DJA State of Nevada, [4] Plaintiff 5 v. Order Denying Motion to Stay 6 Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, [ECF Nos. 9, 10] 7 Defendant [8] 9 Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, who claims he’s a “tax-exempt,” “free sovereign American 10 Citizen and ‘nonresident alien,’” commenced this proceeding as a purported “removal” of a Las 11 Vegas Justice Court Case against him1 and seeks an award of $38.5 million in damages for his 12 alleged “false arrest” and various other torts and constitutional violations.2 Although Bernard13 Ex captioned this case with himself as the defendant, it was he who initiated it. He now moves 14 to stay this case, arguing that his filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 15 2024, triggered an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a).3 16 But the automatic stay does not work that way. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that the 17 stay provided by § 362 “does not prevent a plaintiff/debtor from continuing to prosecute its own 18 claims nor does it prevent a defendant from protecting its interests against claims brought by the 19 debtor.”4 “This is true, even if the defendant’s successful defense will result in the loss of an [21] 1 See ECF No. 1-4 at 5 (referencing Justice Court Case No. 17 F17046X). [22] 2 Id. 23 3 ECF Nos. 9, 10. It appears that the motion was filed twice. 4 In re Palmdale Hills Property, LLC, 654 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2011). 1|| allegedly valuable claim asserted by the debtor.”°> So, because Bernard-Ex initiated this action, 2|| and there are no claims in this case against him, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay this case based on 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) [ECF Nos. 9, 10] is DENIED. ; puns US. District Judgé JenniferA. Dorsey 6 January 7, 2025 [10] 1] [23] > Td.