Artem Koshkalda v. Seiko Epson Corporation ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ARTEM KOSHKALDA, No. 21-15695
Debtor. D.C. No. 4:19-cv-05696-YGR
______________________________
ARTEM KOSHKALDA, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION; EPSON
AMERICA, INC.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Artem Koshkalda appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order finding Koshkalda in contempt
and imposing sanctions in the adversary proceeding against him. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s
decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review
the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v. Tucson
Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We
affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Koshkalda was in
violation of its prior orders, and did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7037 (making
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 applicable to adversary proceedings); Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med.
Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth standard of review); Payne
v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 307 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The [lower] court’s discretion
will not be disturbed unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the court
committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing
of the relevant factors”).
We do not consider Koshkalda’s contention that the bankruptcy court erred
by accepting an unsigned declaration because Koshkalda did not file a notice of
2 21-15695
appeal or amended notice of appeal from the bankruptcy court’s October 3, 2019
order imposing sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-15695