Law v. Siegel (In Re Law) , 435 F. App'x 697 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2011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: STEPHEN LAW, No. 09-60046
Debtor, BAP No. 09-1077-PaMkH
STEPHEN LAW, MEMORANDUM *
Appellant,
v.
ALFRED H. SIEGEL, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Markell, and Hollowell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Stephen Law, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders
surcharging Law’s homestead exemption and imposing discovery sanctions. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy
court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual findings. Latman v.
Burdette, 366 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for an abuse of discretion
the imposition of discovery sanctions. Freeman v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors,
322 F.3d 1133, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The BAP properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order granting the
trustee’s surcharge motion because the surcharge was calculated to compensate the
estate for the actual monetary costs imposed by the debtor’s misconduct, and was
warranted to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process. See Latman, 366 F.3d
at 786 (recognizing inherent power of bankruptcy courts to equitably surcharge a
debtor’s exemption to protect integrity of the bankruptcy process and to ensure that
debtor does not exempt amount greater than allowed under Bankruptcy Code); see
also Onubah v. Zamora (In re Onubah), 375 B.R. 549, 556 (9th Cir. BAP 2007) (a
surcharge should be calculated to compensate the estate for the actual monetary
costs imposed by the debtor’s misconduct).
2 09-60046
The BAP properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order imposing discovery
sanctions on Law, in light of Law’s refusal to comply with the trustee’s permissible
discovery requests in a contested matter. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 (Bankruptcy
Rules 7028-7037 apply in contested matters); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7030 (permitting
depositions as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7034 (providing
for requests for production of documents as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34).
Law’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-60046