Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0863-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Betsey Warren LEBBOS. Betsey Warren Lebbos; et al., Appellants, v. Linda Schuette, Appellee.
    No. 09-15271.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    Betsey Warren Lebbos, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Jason P. Gold, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Thomas Carter, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Michael Paul Dacquisto, Redding, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Betsey Warren Lebbos, Thomas Carter, and Jason Gold appeal pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s default judgment against them as a sanction for their discovery abuses in an adversary action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision, Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions because appellants engaged in discovery abuses that “threaten[ed] to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining factors courts should consider before imposing terminating sanctions) (citation omitted); Visioneering Constr. & Dev. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. (In re Visioneering Constr.), 661 F.2d 119, 123 (9th Cir.1981) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the imposition of terminating sanctions by a bankruptcy court).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

Lebbos’s request for judicial notice is granted. George Alonso’s request for judicial notice is denied.

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