Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: LaShon Rene Coleman

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-17551

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Bankruptcy Judge Thomas B. McNamara

In re:

Bankruptcy Case No. 25-17551 TBM

LASHON RENE COLEMAN, Chapter 7

Debtor.

        ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN                           

                Procedural History.                              

LaShon Rene Coleman (the “Debtor”) filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code on November 18, 2025. (Docket No. 1.) The Court issued an “Order
Discharging Debtor” (Docket No. 15) on February 23, 2026.

On March 10, 2026, the Debtor filed a “Motion to Reopen Debtor’s Chapter 7
Case” (Docket No. 17, the “Motion”). In the Motion, the Debtor asks the Court to reopen
her Chapter 7 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5010 so that
she can file a complaint asserting a claim for violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

             Applicable Legal Authority. 11 U.S.C. § 350 provides:                                            

 (a)  After an estate is fully administered and the court has    
    discharged the trustee, the court shall close the case.      

 (b)  A case may be reopened in the court in which such          
    case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief       
    to the debtor, or for other cause.                           

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5010 provides: “On the debtor’s or another party in interest’s
motion, the court may, under § 350(b), reopen a case . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 350 (b) and Rule 5010 provide the Court with broad discretion in
determining whether to reopening a closed bankruptcy case. In re Alcorn, 25 B.R.
174, 178 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2000) (citing Mendelsohn v. Ozer, 241 B.R. 503 (E.D.N.Y.
1997). In evaluating whether to reopen a case, the Court weighs certain equitable
factors. Id. (citing Matter of Shondel, 950 F.2d 1301, 1304 (7th Cir.1991)). In
determining whether to grant motions to reopen, courts have considered such factors
as: (1) the length of time the case has been closed; (2) whether the debtor would be
entitled to relief if the case were reopened; and (3) the availability of nonbankruptcy
courts, such as state courts, to determine the rights, post-bankruptcy, of the parties.
See, e.g., Redmond v. Fifth Third Bank, 624 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2010); In re
Kassover, 448 B.R. 625, 631-632 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011); /n re Antonious, 373 B.R.
400, 405-06 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007). See also In re Chameleon Ent. Sys., Inc., 2011
WL 3880993 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2011) (citing order in which court applied such factors).
Discussion.
Though the Debtor received her discharge on February 23, 2026, the Court
has not yet closed her case. Because the case is not closed, there is no need to
reopen it. But even if the case had been closed, a debtor is not required to open an
underlying Chapter 7 case before bringing claims for violation of the automatic stay
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (k).. See Johnson v. Smith, 575 F.3d 1079, 1084 (10th
Cir. 2009) (finding no basis for requiring debtors “to move to reopen the Chapter 13
Case to pursue the § 362(k) adversary proceeding”); Tucker v. JP Morgan Chase
Bank N.A. (In re Tucker), 743 F. App'x 964, 968 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that “district
courts have jurisdiction to entertain claims by debtors that creditors violated the
automatic stay, even when those claims are asserted in a separate civil action filed
after the bankruptcy case has been dismissed”); Healthcare Real Estate Partners,
LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (In re Healthcare Real Estate Partners, LLC), 941 F.3d 64, 71 (3d Cir. 2019) (holding that section 362(k) creates a private right of
action which can be brought after dismissal of bankruptcy case); Price v. Rochford, 947 F.2d 829, 830-831 (7th Cir. 1991) (section 362(k) “creates a cause of action that
can be enforced after bankruptcy proceedings have terminated”).
Because the Debtor’s case is not closed, and because reopening a case to
allow the Debtor to file a complaint asserting a claim for violation of the automatic
stay is unnecessary, it is
ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:

                                 Thomas B. McNamat a, / 
                                 United States Bankruptcy Judge