Now Updating
The Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Vera T. Welte Testamentary Trust

Summarizing by Amir Shachmurove

In re Christopher Paul Rabalais

Case Type:
Consumer
Case Status:
Affirmed
Citation:
BAP No. CC-20-1216-GFL (9th Circuit, Mar 01,2021) Not Published
Tag(s):
Ruling:
BAP for 9th Circuit affirmed bankruptcy court (CD Cal.) denial of defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's notice of dismissal of adversary. Debtor failed to demonstrate any error by bankruptcy court in permitting voluntary dismissal. BAP lacked jurisdiction to review Debtor's arguments that underlying judgment should be dischargeable. Bankruptcy court order was final, and Debtor did not appeal within deadline set by Rule 8002(a).
Procedural context:
Creditor-plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of adversary proceeding pursuant to FRCP 41(a). The same day, the Debtor-Defendant filed his answer to the complaint. He then filed a motion to deny dismissal on the basis that it must be by court order because a response had been filed. The bankruptcy court denied Debtor’s motion and dismissed the adversary proceeding. The Debtor appealed to BAP for 9th Circuit.
Facts:
Creditor (“Leon”) obtained state court judgment in California against Rabalais. After the judgment was entered, Rablais filed a chapter 7 case in SD Texas seeking to discharge the debt. But, after applying issue preclusion and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Texas bankruptcy court held the debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2). The Texas judgment was affirmed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Approximately eight years later, Debtor filed another chapter 7 case. Leon moved to dismiss the case under §§ 707(a) and (b). He also filed an adversary complaint to affirm the nondischargeability judgment. Debtor opposed the motion to dismiss and argued that the bankruptcy court could reconsider whether the state court judgment should be given preclusive effect. The court denied the motion and held that it would not revisit the preclusive effect of the state court judgment because that determination was made by the Texas bankruptcy court and affirmed on appeal. The court ordered that the judgment would remain nondischargeable. Based on the bankruptcy court’s ruling, Leon filed a notice of dismissal of his adversary proceeding pursuant to Civil Rule 41(a), incorporated by Rule 7041. That same day, Debtor filed his answer to the complaint. He then filed a motion to deny dismissal on the basis that it must be by court order because a response had been filed. The bankruptcy court denied Debtor’s motion and dismissed the adversary proceeding.
Judge(s):
Gan, Faris, Lafferty

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!

About us in numbers

3623 in the system

3503 Summarized

5 Being Processed