Steven Thompson v. Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: STEVEN THOMPSON; ASTER No. 09-60037
KIFLE-THOMPSON,
BAP No. NC-08-1302-JuMkD
Debtors.
MEMORANDUM *
STEVEN THOMPSON; ASTER KIFLE-
THOMPSON,
Appellants,
v.
MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Markell, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Steven Thompson and Aster Kifle-Thompson (“debtors”) appeal pro se from
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s
summary judgment in an adversary proceeding determining that a California state
court judgment was a nondischargeable debt. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Baldwin v. Kilpatrick (In re Baldwin),
249 F.3d 912, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt was
nondischargeable based on the Monterey County Superior Court’s findings of fact.
See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(6) (debts obtained either under “false pretenses,
a false representation, or actual fraud” or “for willful and malicious injury by the
debtor to another entity” are nondischargeable); In re Baldwin, 249 F.3d at 917-20(concluding that, in an adversary proceeding concerning dischargeability, the
bankruptcy court properly gave preclusive effect to an issue decided in a state court
action). We are not persuaded by debtors’ contentions concerning the California
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
We do not consider debtors’ contention concerning the alleged bias of the
superior court judge because it was raised for the first time on appeal and its
consideration is not “necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” See Travelers Prop.
Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
2 09-60037
Debtors’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-60037