Clifford Brace, Jr. v. Steven Speier ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, Jr., No. 21-55514
Debtor. D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01048-JGB
______________________________
CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, Jr., MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
STEVEN M. SPEIER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et
al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Clifford Allen Brace, Jr. appeals pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s May 5, 2020 civil contempt order
against Brace. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). 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 abuse its discretion in finding Brace in civil
contempt for violating the automatic stay and the bankruptcy court’s compromise
and turnover orders, because the trustee showed by clear and convincing evidence
that Brace knew of the automatic stay and the bankruptcy court’s orders, and
refused to cure his violation. See Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d
1178, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
a party seeking an order of contempt has the burden to show “by clear and
convincing evidence that the contemnor[] violated a specific and definite order of
the court; the automatic stay qualifies as a specific and definite order” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Brace’s contentions that the bankruptcy court
lacked jurisdiction and that the bankruptcy judge was biased against him.
We do not consider Brace’s contentions regarding the bankruptcy court’s
orders addressed in prior appeals (Nos. 21-55153 or 19-56463).
2 21-55514
AFFIRMED.
3 21-55514