AKHLAGHPOUR V. ORANTES, ET AL.

Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
1 month 1 week ago

Case Type:

Consumer

Case Status:

Reversed and Remanded

Citation:

24-2625 (9th Circuit, Jan 20,2026) Published

Tag(s):

Ruling:

Bankruptcy courts may provide Barton approval after debtors have already initiated cases in other forums. Orders allowing debtors to sue others in different forums pursuant to Barton do not inherently violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; they only remove jurisdictional bars to subsequent proceedings. Parties do not need Barton approval when the Barton doctrine does not apply. Bankruptcy courts may not grant Barton approval for claims in a manner that goes beyond removing a jurisdictional bar.

Procedural context:

Mehri Akhlaghpour filed a chapter 11 petition in late 2017. The court appointed a trustee in 2018. Akhlaghpour sued her attorney, Giovanni Orantes, and his firm in California state court in 2019. On appeal, a California appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s ruling. Akhlaghpour then moved to reopen her bankruptcy case in 2023, and she filed a Barton motion. After the court made its decision, Orantes appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. After the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court’s order, Akhlaghpour appealed to the circuit court.

Facts:

Mehri Akhlaghpour met with Giovanni Orantes and his firm to discuss filing for bankruptcy. Acting on Orantes’ recommendation, Akhlaghpour filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The court, which became suspicious about liens against Akhlaghpour’s properties, appointed a trustee who sought to liquidate the properties. Orantes moved to dismiss the petition, but the court denied the motion. Akhlaghpour then sued Orantes and his firm for malpractice in state court. That case reached a California appellate court before Akhlaghpour moved to reopen her case. She then filed a Barton motion to continue prosecuting her case in the state courts. After that, the bankruptcy court partly granted Akhlaghpour’s Barton motion, and Orantes appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The BAP vacated the bankruptcy court’s order, and Akhlaghpour appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the BAP’s order and the bankruptcy court’s order. The Barton approval did not violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but it went beyond removing a jurisdictional bar to Akhlaghpour’s claims against Orantes and his firm. Bankruptcy courts must limit Barton approvals to claims that are consistent with other courts’ decisions.

Judge(s):

Kim McLane Wardlaw, Anthony D. Johnstone, and Scott H. Rash

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!