Vazquez v. AAA Blueprint & Digital Reprographics ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 4 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ,                   No. 14-60003
    Debtor.                            BAP No. 13-1014
    ______________________________
    DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ,                          MEMORANDUM*
    Appellant,
    v.
    AAA BLUEPRINT & DIGITAL
    REPROGRAPHICS, a California
    Corporation,
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Kurtz, Ballinger, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Submitted September 26, 2017**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Chapter 7 debtor Dennis Adrian Vazquez appeals pro se from the judgment
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant
    of summary judgment excepting from discharge Vazquez’s debt to AAA Blueprint
    & Digital Reprographics. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We
    review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the
    BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re
    Boyajian), 
    564 F.3d 1088
    , 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
    The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because the
    findings in the state court action satisfied the elements for “willful and malicious
    injury” under 
    11 U.S.C. § 523
    (a)(6), and California law precludes relitigation of
    issues decided in a prior proceeding. See Diamond v. Kolcum (In re Diamond),
    
    285 F.3d 822
    , 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In determining whether a party should be
    estopped from relitigating an issue decided in a prior state court action, the
    bankruptcy court must look to that state’s law of collateral estoppel.”); Lucido v.
    Superior Court, 
    795 P.2d 1223
    , 1225 (Cal. 1990) (setting forth elements of issue
    preclusion under California law); see also Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. of Nev. (In
    re Ormsby), 
    591 F.3d 1199
    , 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth requirements for
    non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(6)).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     14-60003
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-60003

Judges: Silverman, Tallman, Smith

Filed Date: 10/4/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024