Silva v. Group Practice Affiliates

¶1 The district court correctly dismissed the case because ■ the plaintiffs claims against the defendants are the property of the bankruptcy estate and the plaintiff does not have standing. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing additional time to obtain ratification, join-der, or substitution of the bankruptcy trus *542 tee because the plaintiffs pursuit of the claims in his own name was not the result of an understandable mistake. See Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 272 F.3d 302, 308 (5th Cir.2001). Silva was informed several times that his claims against the defendants were the property of the bankruptcy estate. Instead of attempting to correct the mistake, Silva filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in an attempt to prohibit the bankruptcy trustee from entering the case. AFFIRMED.