From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vazquez v. AAA Blueprint & Dig. Reprographics, Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 4, 2017
No. 14-60003 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2017)

Opinion

No. 14-60003 BAP No. 13-1014

10-04-2017

In re: DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, Debtor. DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. AAA BLUEPRINT & DIGITAL REPROGRAPHICS, a California Corporation, Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Ballinger, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Chapter 7 debtor Dennis Adrian Vazquez appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment excepting from discharge Vazquez's debt to AAA Blueprint & Digital Reprographics. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court's ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because the findings in the state court action satisfied the elements for "willful and malicious injury" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and California law precludes relitigation of issues decided in a prior proceeding. See Diamond v. Kolcum (In re Diamond), 285 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) ("In determining whether a party should be estopped from relitigating an issue decided in a prior state court action, the bankruptcy court must look to that state's law of collateral estoppel."); Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (Cal. 1990) (setting forth elements of issue preclusion under California law); see also Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. of Nev. (In re Ormsby), 591 F.3d 1199, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth requirements for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(6)).

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).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Vazquez v. AAA Blueprint & Dig. Reprographics, Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 4, 2017
No. 14-60003 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2017)
Case details for

Vazquez v. AAA Blueprint & Dig. Reprographics, Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In re: DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, Debtor. DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 4, 2017

Citations

No. 14-60003 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2017)