Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Debtors appealed the district court's order vacating the bankruptcy court's confirmation of their chapter 13 plan. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that, under Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686 (2015), the district court's order vacating confirmation was not a final appealable order because the district court did not finally dispose of a discrete dispute. The panel also held that debtors had other opportunities to seek circuit court review pursuant to the certification methodologies in the general interlocutory appeals statute, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), and the bankruptcy-specific certification procedures, 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(2). View "Bank of New York Mellon v. Watt" on Justia Law

A bankruptcy estate is entitled to the full amount of spendthrift trust distributions due to be paid as of the petition date. But the estate may not access any portion of that money the beneficiary needs for his support or education, as long as the trust instrument specifies that the funds are for that purpose. The estate may also reach 25 percent of expected future payments from the spendthrift trust, reduced by the amount the beneficiary needs to support himself and his dependents. In this case, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision after the California Supreme Court's answer to a certified question regarding whether the creditors of the beneficiary of a spendthrift trust may reach the trust distributions. The panel remanded so that the bankruptcy court could apply the teachings of Carmack v. Reynolds, 391 P.3d 625, 628 (Cal. 2017). View "Frealy v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The County of Los Angeles may not enforce a lien on the personal property of a Chapter 11 debtor in possession when the County has failed to perfect the lien as against a bona fide purchaser. In this case, the Ninth Circuit rejected Mainline's argument that this appeal was mooted by the disbursal of Mainline's bankruptcy estate and dismissal of the Chapter 11 case; 11 U.S.C. 545(2) allows a Chapter 11 debtor in possession to set aside liens against its estate; under section 545(2), Mainline may avoid the County's liens; and Cty. of Humboldt v. Grover (In re Cummins), 656 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1981), remained good law. View "Los Angeles County Treasurer & Tax Collector v. Mainline Equipment, Inc." on Justia Law

11 U.S.C. 363(f), which authorizes a trustee to sell a debtor's assets free and clear of third-party interests, applied to the facts of this case, and did not conflict with section 365(h), which protects the rights of lessees, because the trustee did not "reject" the leases. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's decision that a bankruptcy trustee's sale of debtor's property was free and clear of unexpired leases. View "Pinnacle Restaurant at Big Sky, LLC v. CH SP Acquisitions, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion affirming the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment. The panel held that Infinity's attorney, who sued for violation of a bankruptcy automatic stay, was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for acts other than drafting the order at the judge's request—an issue the court need not reach because the order was never filed. View "Burton v. Infinity Capital Management" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. 362, does not operate to prevent the government's collection of criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). In this case, debtor pleaded guilty to embezzlement and theft of labor union assets, for which she served eighteen months in prison and agreed to pay $193,337.33 in criminal restitution. After debtor's bankruptcy filing, the government offset payments made as income to debtor against the balance of the restitution debt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of debtor's motion to hold the government in contempt for violating the automatic stay through its collection efforts. View "Partida v. DOJ" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's grant of appellees' motion to dismiss Rosanna Mac Turner's and David Turner's Adversary Complaint without leave to amend. The panel held that the Turners' claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law were correctly dismissed without leave to amend because the Turners' lack of standing could not be cured by amendment. The panel also held that the district court correctly dismissed the Turners' claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the Deed of Trust (DOT) and violation of Cal. Civ. Code 2923.5 without leave to amend because any amendment would be futile. The panel explained that the DOT permitted the substitution of the Trustee, the Turners cannot allege that they suffered damages for the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the DOT, and appellees have complied with Section 2923.5, leaving the Turners no remedy. View "Turner v. Wells Fargo Bank NA" on Justia Law

The one-year filing deadline imposed by 11 U.S.C. 727(e)(1) was a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. Debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that fraudulently omitted his home, a key asset. Because no one notice, debtor subsequently received a discharge of his debts under 11 U.S.C. 727(a). The panel held that a non-jurisdictional time bar was an affirmative defense that may be forfeited if not timely raised, and debtor forfeited the defense by failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court. On the merits, the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor fraudulently concealed his ownership interest in the home was plainly correct. Therefore, the panel reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment dismissing the trustee's request for relief under section 727(d)(1) and remanded with instructions. View "Weil v. Elliott" on Justia Law

In Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 956 (1997), the Supreme Court adopted a replacement-value standard for 11 U.S.C. 506(a)(1) cram-down valuations, holding that replacement value, rather than a foreclosure sale that will not take place, is the proper guide under a prescription hinged to the property's disposition or use. In this case, the en banc court held that, because foreclosure would vitiate covenants requiring that the secured property—an apartment complex—be used for low-income housing, foreclosure value in this case exceeds replacement value, which is tied to debtor’s actual use of the property in the proposed reorganization. The en banc court held, as Rash teaches, that section 506(a)(1) requires the use of replacement value rather than a hypothetical value derived from the very foreclosure that the reorganization was designed to avoid. The bankruptcy court did not err here by approving debtor's plan of reorganization and valuing the collateral assuming its continued use after reorganization as low-income housing. Accordingly, the en banc court affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's affirmance of debtor's Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. View "First Southern National Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

Movant-Appellee Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. That filing triggered the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1), which generally applied to protect a debtor after it has filed for bankruptcy protection. The question presented in this case was whether that stay applied to a lawsuit filed by appellant-plaintiff Jeremy Porter, who has asserted a claim under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Porter contended the exception established in 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) applied to exempt his PAGA claim from the automatic stay. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the exception does not apply to a claim brought by a private party under PAGA, and therefore granted Nabors’s motion to recognize the automatic stay. View "Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P." on Justia Law