- BAP Nos. CC-14-1186-DTaKu (July 2, 2015) (unpublished)
- Creditor was not entitled to summary judgment on her § 523(a)(6) claim, based upon a prepetition malicious prosecution judgment against the Debtor. Although it was a "very close call," the results in the malicious prosecution action did not establish the element of “willfulness” for § 523(a)(6) purposes, and thus the state court judgment lacked issue preclusive effect. The BAP VACATED and REMANDED the bankruptcy court’s order granting Creditor's motion for summary judgment.
- Procedural context:
- The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Creditor. On appeal, the BAP vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- Creditor, an attorney, represented a client and lost at trial. Debtor, also an attorney, then represented the client in a legal malpractice action against Creditor and did not prevail. Creditor then sued Debtor for malicious prosecution under California law, and successfully obtained a jury verdict. When Debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the Creditor sued the Debtor for willful and malicious injury, and sought summary judgment based upon the preclusive effect of the state court judgment.
- DUNN, TAYLOR and KURTZ, Bankruptcy Judges.
Margaret Kinney v. HSBC Bank USA
Summarizing by Bradley Pearce
In re Anthony Ray Lincoln
Summarizing by Mawerdi Hamid
Sen. Blumenthal, AG Tong Want Legislation to Prevent Sackler Family from Walking Away with Billions of Dollars After Purdue Pharma Lawsuits
3289 in the system
5 Being Processed