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

The City of Vallejo petitioned for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 2008. Two years after the bankruptcy court confirmed Vallejo's debt-adjustment plan, a federal jury found that two police officers employed by Vallejo used constitutionally excessive force when they arrested Jason Eugene Deocampo. The district court entered a judgment for money damages against the officers in their personal capacities, and awarded Deocampo his attorney’s fees. The court noted that, under California law, Vallejo is generally obligated to indemnify its employees for claims against them arising from their employment. The court held that where, as here, the plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court did not expressly encompass claims or judgments against the city’s employees, the indemnification statutes do not subject such claims or judgments to adjustment by operation of law nor by the fact of the public employment itself. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the officers’ Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment, and agreed with the district court that neither the judgment nor attorney’s fee award was discharged by Vallejo’s bankruptcy proceedings. View "Deocampo v. Potts" on Justia Law

After the County Treasurer and Tax Collector conducted tax sales of the properties debtor owned, debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief. Debtor filed an adversary complaint against the County Treasurer and the purchasers of the two properties, alleging that because the County sold the properties for a price that was too low, the tax sales were fraudulent transfers voidable under 11 U.S.C. 548(a). The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., the Supreme Court held that the price received at a mortgage foreclosure sale “conclusively satisfies” the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that transfers of an insolvent debtor’s property be in exchange for a “reasonably equivalent value,” so long as the mortgagee complied with the relevant foreclosure laws of the state in question, which in that case was also California. Because California tax sales have the same procedural safeguards as the California mortgage foreclosure sale at issue in BFP, the court agreed with the BAP and held that the price received at a California tax sale conducted in accordance with state law conclusively establishes “reasonably equivalent value” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 548(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Tracht Gut, LLC" on Justia Law

Castellino hired Picerne, a general contractor, to construct an apartment complex on Castellino's property. After Castellino defaulted on its obligations and failed to pay Picerne and its subcontractors, Picerne filed a demand for arbitration and a mechanic’s lien against the apartment complex. The parties eventually entered into arbitration and, on the same day the superior court confirmed the arbitration award, Castellino filed a Chapter 11 petition for bankruptcy. On appeal, Picerne contends that the bankruptcy court erred in denying its motion for post-discharge attorneys’ fees. The court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, Picerne could “fairly or reasonably contemplate” that it would have a claim for attorneys’ fees if it prevailed in the state litigation before Castellino filed its petition for bankruptcy. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that the claim was discharged when the bankruptcy court confirmed Castellino’s plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Picerne Constr. v. Castellino Villas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement agreement regarding a parcel of land in Berkeley, California, but failed to seek a stay of the sale order. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had the discretion to apply 11 U.S.C. 363 to the settlement involving a sale of the estate’s potential claims, and did not clearly err in determining that First-Citizens was a good faith purchaser of those claims. Therefore, under section 363(m), the court concluded that the sale may not be modified or set aside on appeal unless it was stayed pending appeal. Because plaintiff failed to seek a stay, the appeal is moot. The court did not reach plaintiff's challenges to the propriety of the sale of claims under section 363, as such an analysis would require the court to impermissibly reach the underlying merits of the settlement. View "Adeli v. Barclay" on Justia Law

David Freeman and his cohort of investors, including William Del Biaggio, III, purchased the Nashville Predators, a National Hockey League (NHL) team in Nashville, Tennessee. As a result of the sale, the Predators became wholly owned and operated by Nashville Hockey Club Limited Partnership, LLC, which is in turn wholly owned by Predators Holdings, LLC (Holdings). Several months after the sale, Freeman learned that Del Biaggio never had the funds to support his guarantees and that the $25 million Del Biaggio already invested was in fact money he had embezzled from his clients. Del Biaggio filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which gave rise to the current proceeding. Freeman filed a general unsecured claim against Del Biaggio’s bankruptcy estate seeking damages of an undetermined amount arising from his fraud in the Holdings transaction. In response, the Liquidating Trust Committee of the Del Biaggio Liquidating Trust, the entity charged with prosecuting claims objections in Del Biaggio’s bankruptcy, filed a counterclaim against Freeman and sought summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted the Committee’s motion for summary judgment, finding Freeman’s claim was subject to mandatory subordination under 11 U.S.C. 510(b). The court concluded that Freeman's claim is a damages claim, and the district court did not err in applying section 510(b) to his claim against Del Biaggio because his claim is one "arising from the purchase or sale" of Holdings. Furthermore, Freeman's claim is not limited to corporate debtors. The court rejected Freeman's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Liquidating Trust Comm. v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Debtor is the mother of a minor who was held in juvenile detention in Orange County for more than a year. At issue is whether a mother’s debt to Orange County arising from her son’s involuntary juvenile detention is a “domestic support obligation” (DSO) and thus excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. The court concluded that it is not. Debtor's debt is not in the nature of domestic support simply because it represents in part the costs of her son’s basic needs. Where the principal purpose of the County’s custody over debtor’s son is public safety, not the son’s domestic well-being or welfare, the debt does not qualify as a DSO. Accordingly, the court reversed the bankruptcy appellate panel's decision. View "Rivera v. Orange Cnty. Prob. Dept." on Justia Law

Creditor appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision determining that the exception to discharge found in 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(2) did not apply to debtor. The court held that section 727(a)(2), which prevents the bankruptcy court from granting a debtor a discharge if the debtor improperly transferred property “within one year before the date of the filing of the petition” in bankruptcy, is not subject to equitable tolling. In this case, because the transfer of the Lake Harbor property took place more than one year before debtor filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and section 727(a)(2) is not subject to equitable tolling, debtor was not precluded from discharge of his debts under section 727(a)(2). Accordingly, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment to debtor on this issue. View "DeNoce v. Neff" on Justia Law

Castaic, debtors, challenged the district court's dismissal of this bankruptcy appeal as moot under 11 U.S.C. 363(m). During the pendency of the appeal, the bankruptcy court dismissed the underlying bankruptcy cases as well. Castaic did not appeal those dismissals, and after 14 days, they became final. Therefore, the court concluded that there is no longer any case or controversy, and the court has no power to grant Castaic any effective relief. The court dismissed the appeal as moot under Article III. View "In the matter of Castaic Partners II, LLC" on Justia Law

Marilyn Scheer, an attorney with a suspended California law license, contends that the district court erred when it held that her debt to a former client was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(7). In this case, there were no costs or fees assessed for disciplinary reasons. Rather, the debt at issue was effectively the amount that Scheer improperly received from a client, but did not pay back. At its core, the $5775 at issue is not a fine or penalty, but compensation for actual loss. The court concluded that the the debt to her client does not fall within the section 523(a)(7) nondischargeability exception. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Scheer v. State Bar of CA" on Justia Law

Sunnyslope, as the debtor of a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, exercised the cram down option pursuant to section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and elected to retain the property at issue. Sunnyslope argued that the value of First Southern’s secured interest should be calculated with the affordable housing restrictions remaining in place. The bankruptcy court and the district court both agreed. First Southern appeals. The court denied Sunnyslope’s motion to dismiss the appeals as equitably moot. The court concluded that valuing First Southern’s secured interest as if the affordable housing restrictions related to subordinated positions still applied was not appropriate under section 506(a). All of the restrictive covenants and other provisions that Sunnyslope seeks to invoke to limit the project to affordable housing and to the reduced rental income that would be collected as a result are derived from positions that were junior and expressly subordinated to First Southern's interest. As a result, the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court must be set aside, because it was based on an improper valuation of First Southern's interest. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "First Southern Nat'l Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing" on Justia Law