`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`WO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`Angela Branum,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`City of Phoenix, et al.,
`
`
`No. CV-21-00357-TUC-RM
`
`ORDER
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Angela Branum, who is represented by counsel, brought this civil rights
`
`action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 17.) Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ second
`
`Motion to Extend Time to Submit Expert Disclosures (Doc. 104) and the parties’
`
`Responses (Docs. 118-120) to the Court’s Order directing the parties to apprise the Court
`
`of their positions on whether proceeding with this action will prejudice any party (Doc.
`
`117). For the following reasons, the Court will stay this entire case pending the lifting of
`
`the automatic bankruptcy stay issued in Defendant Corizon’s bankruptcy proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Plaintiffs in this case are the Estate of Justin Branum (“Mr. Branum”) and his
`
`surviving wife, Angela Branum, who has been appointed the executor of Mr. Branum’s
`
`estate. (Doc. 17 ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiffs allege in their Third Amended Complaint that Mr.
`
`Branum was arrested by Arizona Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) officers, who
`
`pulled him from his vehicle and beat him until he lost kidney function. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 50,
`
`54.) DPS officers then transported Mr. Branum to the Phoenix Police Department
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`(“PPD”), where Phoenix Fire Department (“PFD”) responders examined Mr. Branum.
`
`(Id. ¶ 55, 59.) PPD officers subsequently transported Mr. Branum to the Maricopa
`
`County Fourth Avenue Jail. (Id. ¶ 65.) Despite expressing that he was sick and needed
`
`to go to the hospital, Mr. Branum sat in the jail for hours with no medical care while his
`
`kidneys failed. (Id. ¶ 76, 79.) Approximately 90 hours after Mr. Branum was booked
`
`into the Fourth Avenue Jail, he was transported by ambulance to the Maricopa Medical
`
`Center, where he was placed into a medically induced coma. (Id. ¶¶ 84, 85.) Days later,
`
`Mr. Branum woke up from the coma, missing a portion of his intestines, relying on an
`
`ostomy bag, and requiring daily dialysis for the rest of his life. (Id. ¶ 86.) Mr. Branum
`
`entered the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”) on March 28, 2018. (Id. ¶ 87.)
`
`Mr. Branum received treatment from Corizon Health, Inc.1 until he died on May 12,
`
`2019. (Id. ¶ 92.) The Pima County coroner’s office determined that Mr. Branum’s
`
`primary cause of death was renal failure. (Id. ¶ 94.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege the following claims in their Third Amended Complaint: a
`
`Fourteenth Amendment familial association claim against all Defendants in Count 1;
`
`Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure and excessive force claims against DPS Director
`
`Heston Selbert and DPS Doe Defendants in Count 2; Fourteenth Amendment medical
`
`care claims against unnamed DPS, PPD, PFD, and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Doe
`
`Defendants, PPD Detective Ramirez, PPD Chief Jeri Williams, and PFD Chief Sarah
`
`Kalkbrenner in Count 3; municipal liability claims against the City of Phoenix and
`
`Maricopa County in Count 4; and Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment medical care
`
`claims against the State of Arizona (through former ADC Director David Shinn and ADC
`
`Does) and Corizon in Count 5; and a wrongful death claim against Corizon in Count 6.
`
`(Doc. 17; see also Doc. 46.)
`
`Defendant Corizon has filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and Notice of Automatic
`
`Stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). (Doc. 110.) Corizon has also provided notice that the
`
`bankruptcy court temporarily extended the automatic stay to claims against Defendant
`
`1 Corizon Health, Inc. is now known as Tehum Care Services, Inc. (See Doc. 112-1; Doc.
`116.)
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`Shinn through May 18, 2023. (Doc. 116 at 2.) On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
`
`Motion to stay these proceedings “for ninety days or until the automatic stay issued in
`
`Defendant Corizon’s bankrtupcy [sic] is lifted, whichever is earlier.” (Doc. 112 at 1.)
`
`Thereafter, this Court ordered each party to “file a response reflecting their positions as to
`
`why proceeding with discovery as to the non-debtor Defendants will prejudice any
`
`party.” (Doc. 117 at 3.)2
`
`In response to the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs affirmed their support for a stay
`
`“commensurate with the bankruptcy court’s temporary stay” to promote “fundamental
`
`fairness and judicial efficiency and economy.” (Doc 120 at 5.) Plaintiffs raised concerns
`
`about the prejudice that could befall “DPS Defendants, the City of Phoenix, and
`
`Maricopa County” if this case proceeded and these Defendants were unable to take
`
`discovery from Corizon “when that discovery directly impacts the determination of fault
`
`attributable to each Defendant.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiffs aver that proceeding while the
`
`case is stayed against the entities that provided medical care to Mr. Branum “could result
`
`in a significant duplication of effort and inconsistent results for these remaining
`
`[D]efendants.” (Id. at 5-6.) Finally, Plaintiffs expressed their intent to oppose the
`
`bankruptcy court’s stay and prosecute their claims against Corizon and the Arizona
`
`Department of Corrections through this matter, which they hope to have “entirely back on
`
`track after the bankruptcy court rules on the stay motion.” (Id. at 8-9.)
`
`In its Response, Defendant Maricopa County contends that several factors support
`
`a stay in this case. (Doc. 118.) First, this case’s procedural posture supports a stay
`
`because discovery is incomplete, the trial date is not set, and the pre-trial conference is
`
`not yet scheduled. (Id. at 5.) Next, Maricopa County avers that a stay would not damage
`
`any party. (Id.) Maricopa County then argues that a stay should be granted because “the
`
`allegations related to causation against Corizon are inextricably linked to the claims
`
`against the County and seemingly against all Defendants.” (Id. at 6.) Furthermore, in a
`
`
`2 The Court directed Plaintiffs’ response to also address service as to Defendants
`Ramirez, Kalkbrenner, Williams, and Selbert. (Doc. 117 at 3.) The Court will address
`that issue in a separate order.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`case of concurrent causation, Defendants bear the burden of proving the extent to which
`
`Mr. Branum’s harm resulted from other concurrent causes. (Id. at 7.) Thus, Defendants
`
`would be highly prejudiced if the action proceeded without Corizon. (Id.) Finally,
`
`Maricopa County asserts that Corizon’s absence could result “in an unjustified
`
`apportionment of damages because a critical Defendant would not be included in the jury
`
`deliberations.” (Id.) Defendant City of Phoenix joined in Defendant Maricopa County’s
`
`Response. (Doc. 119.)
`
`On July 31, 2023, Defendants City of Phoenix and Maricopa County filed a
`
`Stipulation to Extend Case Management Deadlines, in which the parties requested an
`
`eight-month extension of the remaining case management deadlines. (Doc. 124.)
`
`On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Status Memorandum Regarding Corizon
`
`Bankruptcy Proceedings. (Doc. 125.) Plaintiffs confirmed that they filed a Motion for
`
`Relief from Stay with the bankruptcy court; however, that court sua sponte continued the
`
`hearing on the Motion. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that she believes that “the
`
`bankruptcy court likely will not hear motions for relief from the stay until Tehum Care
`
`Services and the Creditors Committee complete a global mediation.” (Id. at 2.) Counsel
`
`“has not been contacted regarding the scheduling of that mediation.” (Id.) Finally,
`
`Plaintiffs note that it is unclear how the mediation would resolve their claims against the
`
`State of Arizona regarding Mr. Branum’s incarceration in the ADC. (Id. at 3.)
`
`On August 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Response to Defendants’
`
`July 31, 2023 Stipulation. (Doc. 126.) Plaintiffs communicated that they are “unhappy
`
`about the delay created by Corizon’s bankruptcy filing.” (Id. at 1.) Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiffs “have asked the bankruptcy court to lift its stay and return to this Court the
`
`Plaintiffs’ Corizon/State of Arizona claims.’ (Id.) Plaintiffs state that if the case against
`
`Corizon resolves at mediation, the remaining parties can move forward with this case.
`
`(Id. at 2.) If it does not resolve at mediation, the case against Corizon will be returned to
`
`this Court. (Id.) Plaintiffs express concern that the schedule proposed by Defendants
`
`City of Phoenix and Maricopa County does not account for Corizon’s potential return to
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`this litigation and that the deadlines for discovery are too short. (Id. at 2.) Finally,
`
`Plaintiffs reiterate their concern that allowing this action to proceed without Corizon
`
`could create “duplicative work” and “cause substantial prejudice” to the parties. (Id. at 2,
`
`4.)
`
`II.
`
`Analysis
`
`Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), the filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically
`
`stays any “judicial ... action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been
`
`commenced before the” petition was filed. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`against Corizon fall within the scope of § 362(a)(1). Accordingly, all proceedings
`
`concerning Corizon are stayed in this matter, pending the bankruptcy proceeding’s
`
`completion.3
`
`The automatic stay does not encompass the entirety of this action. The Ninth
`
`Circuit has made clear that:
`
`As a general rule, “[t]he automatic stay of section 362(a) protects only the
`debtor, property of the debtor or property of the estate. It does not protect
`non-debtor parties or their property. Thus, section 362(a) does not stay
`actions against guarantors, sureties, corporate affiliates, or other non-debtor
`parties liable on the debts of the debtor.”
`
`
`
`In re Chugach Forest Prods., Inc., 23 F.3d 241, 246 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting In re
`
`Advanced Ribbons & Office Prods., 125 B.R. 259, 263 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991)).
`
`Nonetheless, district courts have inherent power to stay proceedings in their respective
`
`courts. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“the power to stay proceedings
`
`is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes
`
`on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).
`
`In determining whether to stay proceedings, the court must weigh:
`
`the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the
`hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go
`forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
`simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which
`
`3 As noted above, the bankruptcy court temporarily extended the automatic stay to
`Defendant Shinn. (See Doc. 116.) It is not clear based on the record before this Court
`whether the temporary extension has expired.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`could be expected to result from a stay.
`
`Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
`
`Based on the party’s filings, the Court finds that a stay is justified based on the
`
`hardship and inequity the parties may suffer by proceeding and the simplifying of factual
`
`and legal issues that could be expected to result from a stay. See Lockyer 398 F.3d at
`
`1112. Furthermore, the Court finds that the possible damage that may result from a stay
`
`is minimal at this juncture. Accordingly, the Court will stay this entire case pending the
`
`lifting of the automatic bankruptcy stay issued in Defendant Corizon’s bankruptcy
`
`proceeding. Because this case will be stayed, Plaintiffs’ second Motion to Extend Time
`
`to Submit Expert Disclosure (Doc. 104)4 and Defendants’ Stipulation to Extend Case
`
`Management Deadlines (Doc. 124) will be denied as moot. The parties shall promptly
`
`notify this Court of any relevant developments in Corizon’s bankruptcy proceeding.
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED:
`
`(1)
`
`Plaintiffs’ second Motion to Extend Time to Submit Expert Disclosures
`
`(Doc. 104) is denied as moot.
`
`(2) Defendants City of Phoenix and Maricopa County’s Stipulation to Extend
`
`Case Management Deadlines (Doc. 124) is denied as moot.
`
`(3)
`
`The above-entitled action is stayed pending further Order of this Court.
`
`(4) Within fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is filed, and every sixty
`
`(60) days thereafter, the parties shall file a status report regarding the status of the
`
`Corizon’s bankruptcy proceeding.
`
`. . . .
`
`. . . .
`
`. . . .
`
`. . . .
`
`
`4 In Plaintiffs’ second Motion to Extend Time to Submit Expert Disclosures (Doc. 104),
`Plaintiffs express concern that Defendants “City of Phoenix and State of Arizona have
`not met their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. Pro 26 and have not fully responded to the
`Plaintiffs’ document requests.” (Doc. 104.) Plaintiffs are encouraged to refer to the
`Court’s August 19, 2022 Order (Doc. 54 at 2-3.), which outlines the process for resolving
`discovery disputes.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00357-RM Document 127 Filed 09/21/23 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`(5)
`
`The parties shall notify this Court within seven (7) days of the issuance of
`
`any order by the bankruptcy court affecting the automatic stay as applied to this case.
`
`Dated this 21st day of September, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`