Warren Havens v. Arnold Leong ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LEONG PARTNERSHIP, No. 18-60023
Debtor. BAP No. 17-1015
______________________________
WARREN C. HAVENS, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
ARNOLD LEONG; et al.,
Appellees.
In re: LEONG PARTNERSHIP, No. 18-60024
Debtor. BAP No. 17-1034
______________________________
WARREN C. HAVENS,
Appellant,
v.
ARNOLD LEONG; et al.,
Appellees.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Taylor and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Warren Havens appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment dismissing the
involuntary Chapter 11 petition Havens filed against alleged debtor Leong
Partnership. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently
review the bankruptcy court’s decision on appeal from the BAP. Eden Place, LLC
v. Perl (In re Perl), 811 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016). We review the
bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo, and we review its findings of fact a
for clear error. Liberty Tool & Mfg. v. Vortex Fishing Sys, Inc. (In re Vortex
Fishing Sys., Inc.), 277 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
First, Arnold Leong, an alleged partner in the Leong Partnership, was
authorized under 11 U.S.C. § 303(d) to file an answer and oppose the involuntary
bankruptcy petition.
Second, the bankruptcy court correctly determined that there existed a bona
fide dispute as to the validity of the petitioning creditors’ claims against Leong
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Partnership for salary and rent and for tort liability. See 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1)
(petitioning creditor must hold a claim “that is not contingent as to liability or the
subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount”); In re Vortex, 277 F.3d at
1064 (the bankruptcy court must “determine whether there are facts that give rise
to a legitimate disagreement over whether money is owed, or, in certain cases, how
much”).
Appellant’s motions to file a substitute or corrected reply brief (Docket
Entry No. 31 in 18-60023, Docket Entry No. 27 in 18-60024) are granted.
Appellant’s motion for a stay (Docket Entry No. 33 in 18-60023) is denied.
Appellant’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 34-36 in 18-
60023, Docket Entry Nos. 31-33 in 18-60024) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3