Laura James v. Viktoria Kirakosian

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LAURA KAY JAMES; et al., No. 19-60018
Debtors. BAP No. 18-1021
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
LAURA KAY JAMES; et al.,
Appellants,
v.
VIKTORIA KIRAKOSIAN,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Faris, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtors Laura Kay James and Jake Guillermo James appeal pro se
*
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).
from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s
judgment against them, following a trial in Kirakosian’s adversary proceeding
alleging nondischargeability of debt. 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 findings of fact. Jones v. U.S. Trustee, 736 F.3d 897, 899 (9th Cir.
2013). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that appellants’ debt to
Kirakosian was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(6). See
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286-91 (1991) (preponderance of evidence
standard applies to nondischargeability claims under § 523); Ghomeshi v. Sabban
(In re Sabban), 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements for
claim under § 523(a)(2)(A)); Banks v. Gill Distribution Ctrs., Inc. (In re Banks),
263 F.3d 862, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing willful injury requirement for
claim under § 523(a)(6)).
We do not consider appellants’ arguments regarding hearsay and unverified
exhibits not raised before the bankruptcy court. See Price v. Kramer, 200 F.3d
1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure to object to evidence at trial on the specific
basis raised on appeal results in waiver of challenge to admissibility).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 19-60018
In light of our disposition, appellants’ motion to dismiss Kirakosian’s
adversary proceeding (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-60018