Case ID: br_370/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re: Thurman BROWN, Ellett Law Offices, P.C., Appellant, v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, Appellee.
    No. 05-15607.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2007 .
    Filed April 26, 2007.
    David William Engelman, Esq., Engel-man Berger, P.C., Rick D. Sherman, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Appellee.
    Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald Ellett of the Ellett Law Offices, P.C., appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions for violation of Bankr.R. Proc. 9011. We reverse.

In a separate opinion contemporaneous with this Memorandum, we reversed the district court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the bankruptcy court’s rulings on the cross-motions for summary judgment. On remand, the district court will get the first stab at the correctness of those rulings. Regardless, the imposition of sanctions against Ellett and his firm was erroneous.

There is no dispute that the trustee’s sale occurred after the bankruptcy stay was in place and that the sale did not get completely unwound until after Ellett, on Brown’s behalf, sued Wilshire for a violation of the automatic stay. In other words, Brown’s lawsuit was filed before all steps had been taken to unwind the sale, and may have succeeded in prodding Wil-shire to promptly finish the unwinding the following day. Even if Brown’s suit for damages for willful violation of the stay turns out to be a loser, it was not frivolous.

REVERSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.