Many of you have requested an explanation of the Notice sent out by the Court on February 4 in regards to Bonnie Stern’s pending chapter 7 bankruptcy and what the Court is requesting, etc.

The notice sent out by the Court is saying basically the parties have several options as follows:

1. Dismiss the Bankrupt party (Bonnie Stern); this could also include just “severing” Miss Stern from the pending suit. (I. E. There would be the suit against all of the co-defendants but Miss Stern would be severed to an additional suit, but same facts). Either way anything concerning Miss Stern, from Admissions, Interrogatories, Production of Documents, Depositions, etc. is “stayed” for now. This should not be a huge road block as Miss Stern filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy and those go through fairly fast and are discharged. Miss Stern’s debtors meeting is set for February 23, and the last day for debtors to dispute the chapter 7 bankruptcy is April 24. The bankruptcy will be discharged fairly fast after that final filing date. The big affect of Miss Stern’s bankruptcy is that if a judgment is awarded against her, it is moot, as it is included in Miss Stern’s bankruptcy as a potential debt owed.

2. Remove to the bankruptcy court. This would mean the parties would agree to have the California Bankruptcy Court hear this pending case, make rulings etc. I don’t see any of the parties filing to do that and I am not sure that Miss Stern could file to do that.

3. File with the 280th District Texas Court in Houston a copy of the bankruptcy court’s Order lifting the stay. In other words one of the parties would have to file with the California bankruptcy court a Motion to lift the automatic stay on ANY proceedings concerning Miss Stern. From the research I have done on line since Miss Stern’s bankruptcy is a chapter 7, total liquidation of her personal assets and not an reorganization bankruptcy, as TrimSpa did in New Jersey, I doubt any of the parties will spend the time and money attempting to get this done.

After talking with the clerk of court today here is my understanding of what is going on and the clerk of the court said this is “normal procedures” for Harris County District Sate Court when one of the parties files bankruptcy. All normal discovery and filing dates go forward unless objected to and asked for a hearing to be held. The court can not hear Motions and Rule on them but that is the only concrete stay in this pending suit.

That means the different parties can serve on any and all other parties, interrogatories, request for production of documents, requests for admissions, and even conduct depositions. Remember that Howard K. Stern’s attorneys have already said their client is willing to sit for a deposition for both jurisdiction and merits of the case together. If one of the other parties files a Motion Objecting to that and a hearing is set, then the deposition would not go forward, otherwise I would think Mr. Stern and Ms. Arthur’s legal teams are negotiating a date for that prior to the March 20 date of hearing the jurisdictional issues. If Miss Stern is not dismissed or severed from the existing case that hearing would be put off until the bankruptcy is discharged in April or May.

In another example I have been served with both a subpoena for documents as well as I have a pending Request for Production of Documents from one of my co-defendants. It is my understanding that unless I file an Objection and ask for a ruling from the court, the Request for Production of documents from me is still due within thirty days of receipt of that request. That Production of documents is due by February 26, to avoid any Motions to Compel; I intend to comply with the request. I have begun to work on this and have sent out an email to all of the other parties asking for any objections, a request for privilege, etc. if any of the other parties request that and asking if the documents can be provided by DVD and not printed out and assigned bates number. My assumption is that if I do not hear from any of the other parties then I will provide copies of those documents to not only the requesting party but to all parties “currently in this suit”. That would NOT include CBS and I am still unclear if the court ruled on December 11 to add Larry Birkhead. I intend to produce this request on DVD unless someone objects to that and wants them printed out with Bates numbers. If a party sends me an objection before asking for a hearing I would make ever endeavor to work out with the all of the parties a solution and if I am not able to then I would provide those documents that were not part of the objection. Which by the way if any of the other parties read this blog please don’t make me print out the hundred of pages, if not thousands included in this request for production of documents.

I believe any objections to the Motion to Designate Responsible 3rd Parties is still due fifteen (15) days from January 30, which would be either by February 14 which is a Saturday so it would be due the following Monday, February 16 if the fifteen (15) days is counted as calendar days and not “business days”. If the Objection to the Motion is due in fifteen (15) business days that would make the Motion due no later than February 20. I have no idea how many days after that Objection is filed that a Motion to Designate Responsible 3rd Parties and “replead”, (add more facts) is granted under the Texas Civil Rules for Procedure in state courts. I will try to look that up for everyone.

It sounds like with an objection to any deposition on Monday, February 9, which the plaintiff in this case has notified all of the other parties of that objection, that deposition will NOT go foward. I would “guess” then Art Harris who has informed the court through Notice of Appearance and other Motions would file his objection and perhaps ask the court for permission to amend those objections once the Court can hear or read and rule on his Motion of Objection to be Designated as a Responsible 3rd Party.

Based on the information from the court’s clerk, the case and schedule goes forward in discovery except for any Objections filed to the production of documents, request for admission, interrogatories, and depositions which would then put those on hold pending the court’s rulings and Orders. I would think with this court and judge the court would expect that this case is anticipated to be ready for the court to issue additional rulings and orders once the Court can set them for hearings. Of course Bonnie Stern could either be dismissed or severed from this existing case and tried separately and in that event I would need to do a lot of research about whether she can be compelled to do anything in regards to any form of discovery by any of the parties that would be directed at Miss Stern.

I would like to note that Art Harris and I remain on good terms, as I said on January 30 the Motion to Designate Responsible 3rd parties was procedural and nothing personal. Mr. Harris was already a co-defendant and in this case for the duration in any event of what the Court might rule at a future date in regards to the Motions. For the most part I remain on good terms with all of the parties except perhaps two and hopefully that will also change as the case moves forward.

That is my understanding from the filings and talking to the clerk for the court this morning. I am glad I did talk to the clerk of court to clarify this since I do have certain requests pending that I do not intend to object to and will provide those documents as requested including the request received on January 26.

Pick up the Court’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss Bankruptcy, as well as all documents in this case which are opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com and give us your thoughts.

©Rose Turner
February 6, 2009
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Amy L. Bush, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Howard K Stern, Jay Patton, John Patton, L. Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, Virgie Arthur

Last night the world watched in awe as Dannielynn Birkhead once again made a television appearance on Larry King Live, once looking at the camera and smiling just like her mom, Anna Nicole Smith.

In other news late this afternoon the court “passed”, cancelled, all Motions pending for February 6 at 9 AM, these included two Motions to compel to image the hard drives of Teresa Stephens and Howard K. Stern.

Bonnie Stern’s Bankruptcy has “stayed”, halted, all proceedings in the Harris County Court on Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, TMZ.com, Harvey Levin, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Teresa Stephens, Lyndal Harrington and Rose Turner of Rose Speaks.com. This staying of all proceedings also makes moot the Court’s Order for Art Harris, Lyndal Harrington and Bonnie Stern to turn over their computer hard drives to be imaged by this Friday, February 6.

Ms. Stern’s debtor’s conference is to be on February 23 at 3:30 PM in Los Angeles California federal bankruptcy Court. The last date to dispute any claim is April 24, so the “stay” on the state Court Proceedings will probably be only for a few weeks until the plaintiff can file with the bankruptcy court to have the stay lifted on all other defendants.

There were also Motions pending before the court to for an oral hearing on behalf of Art Harris to clarify the January 30 Motion to add designated third parties of CBS, Art Harris and Larry Birkhead, those Motions have also been stayed as it appears has any service to add Larry Birkhead to the case.

Before the state Court had stayed all Proceedings, Teresa Stephens had filed to have heard her previous request to subpoena yahoo.com for her past email records and Lyndal Harrington had filed a theft report showing that her computer had been stolen and could not be imaged.

Once we have copies of any of the Court’s ruling on pending Motions or copies of the pending Motions we will of course have them for you in our download section open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
February 3, 2009
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Amy L. Bush, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Charles Babcock, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Howard K Stern, Jay Patton, John Patton, L. Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nancy Hamilton, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Virgie Arthur