On June 12, 2014,
the arbitrator sustained Mr. Leckrone’s objection and held
that the proper parties are TPL and Patriot
(Flowers Dec.,
¶
11 &
Ex. 3). Instead of
dismissing
the claim, the arbitrator gave
Mr. Johnson
leave to amend the claim.
Patriot has prepared an amended
claim naming TPL as the respondent seeking
appointment of an independent arbitrator (Flowers Dec.,
¶
12 &
Ex. 4) and to the
extent necessary, seeks relief from the automatic stay to file
and prosecute
the
amended claim.
III.
ARGUMENT
The automatic stay (11
U.S.C.
§
362) generally prohibits prosecution of a claim
against the estate, actions to recovery property from the debtor to satisfy a judgment,
or perfect a lien against the estate. Since the Arbitration does not seek monetary reli
ef,
it does not involve a
“
claim
,”
and the automatic stay does not apply.
11 U.S.C.
§§
101(5)
& 362(a).
Given Mr. Lekrone’s refusal to appoint an independent manager and refusal
to participate
in the
arbitration,
however,
Patriot seeks precautionary relief
from
automatic stay in an effort to avoid any claim by the debtor that Patriot violated 11
U.S.C.
§
362.
Even if the stay is applicable, it should be modified to allow
arbitration of the
amended demand. Specifically, a b
ankruptcy court must enforce
an
agr
eement to
arbitr
ate a claim that is non
-
core.
In re Gurga
, 176 B.R. 196 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994).
Here, appointment of a neutral manager of a joint venture in which the debtor has an
interest certainly is not a core proceeding. Thus, the automatic stay shou
ld be modified
to allow arbitration of the amended demand
