CHARLES F. STEINBERGER Case No. 8:10-bk-19945-KRM

Case 8:11-mc-00071-JSM Case 8:11-ap-00418-KRM Document Doc 1-212 Filed Filed 06/27/11 05/20/11 Page Page 13 13 of 27 of 27 PageID 19failing to require defendant Internet.bs to offer Plaintiff phone support. Id. at 155-165.Finally, Plaintiff alleges that ICANN violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) byfailing to adequately respond to her request for records and to answer why ICANN transferredher domain name registrations to defendant Internet.bs. Id. at 170-174.D. Proceedings in the Bankruptcy CourtIn response to the filing of the Complaint, on April 21, 2011, the Debtor-Defendant fileda motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Discharge Injunction and to impose sanctions onPlaintiff for willfully violating the Discharge Injunction (the “Discharge Injunction Motion”).On April 26, 2011, the Trustee filed the Notice of Removal directly with the Bankruptcy Court,purporting to remove the entire Oregon Action to the Bankruptcy Court and alleging, amongother things, that upon removal the proceeding would be a core proceeding. See Ex. A to thisMotion. On April 28, 2011, the Trustee filed a copy of the Notice of Removal with the StateCourt. See Ex. B to this Motion. Even though the Trustee’s removal was defective in that itfailed to comply with the procedures mandated in 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and Bankruptcy Rule9027(a)(1), upon the filing of the Notice of Removal with the State Court the Trustee succeededin commencing this Adversary Proceeding. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9027(c), all partieswere thereby prohibited from proceeding any further in the State Court unless and until theaction is remanded. A pretrial conference hearing is scheduled for June 21, 2011.On May 7, 2011, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding on thegrounds that the filing of the Oregon Action naming the Trustee as a defendant without firstseeking leave from the Bankruptcy Court violated the “Barton Doctrine.” See, e.g., Lawrence v.Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Barton doctrine” bars suit against trustee andcounsel, applying doctrine derived from Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881)).7