Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01004/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01004-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In the matter of

Cole Sorenson; Liza Sorenson,

Debtors, _________________________________

David Blake, 

Appellant, 

vs.

 

 

Cole Sorenson; Liza Sorenson, 

Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01004-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it appellees Cole and Liza Sorenson’s “Rule 38 motion for

attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal” (doc. 21). Appellant David Blake did not respond.

I.

In 1999, Blake’s then lawyer Cole Sorenson failed to timely file a notice of claim that

was necessary for Blake to bring a personal injury action against a school district. Blake

obtained a default malpractice judgment against Sorenson. In 2005, Sorenson and his wife

filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Blake filed an adversary claim in the bankruptcy

proceeding alleging that his malpractice judgment against Sorenson was not subject to

discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because it arose from a willful and malicious injury.

Case 2:08-cv-01004-FJM Document 24 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

On May 1, 2008, the bankruptcy court found that the malpractice judgment was

dischargeable because Sorenson neither intended to injure Blake nor believed that injury was

substantially certain to occur as a result of his conduct. On appeal to this court, Blake

contended that, as a matter of law, personal-injury lawyers know that injury is substantially

certain to occur if they miss a notice of claim deadline. We affirmed the bankruptcy court

because Blake failed to show that Sorenson acted intentionally when he missed the deadline

(doc. 19). The Sorensons now move for damages and costs resulting from a frivolous appeal.

II.

A district court may award just damages and single or double costs to an appellee as

a sanction for a frivolous appeal from a bankruptcy court judgment. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8020.

The standard applied is the same as under Rule 38, Fed. R. App. P. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8020 advisory committee’s note. An appeal is frivolous if the results are obvious or the

arguments of error are wholly without merit. Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 411

(9th Cir. 1990). The Sorensons contend that Blake’s appeal was frivolous because injuries

caused by negligent conduct constituting professional malpractice are clearly not willful and

malicious under § 523(a)(6) and there was no evidence that Sorenson acted intentionally.

On appeal, Blake reformulated his theory for meeting the willfulness requirement by

focusing on the act of missing the notice of claim deadline instead of on Sorenson’s

intentional conduct that resulted in the missed deadline. And he called for a change in an

area of Ninth Circuit law subject to a circuit split. See In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1144-46 (9th

Cir. 2002) (distinguishing subjective knowledge of substantially certain injury based on

circumstantial evidence from objective knowledge of substantially certain injury and

acknowledging a circuit split). In doing so, Blake may not have realized that he undercut the

factual foundation for his appeal because his new theory relied on an act which he could not

show was intentional. We conclude that a sanction for a frivolous appeal is not warranted.

Case 2:08-cv-01004-FJM Document 24 Filed 12/14/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING appellees’ “Rule 38 motion for

attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal” (doc. 21).

DATED this 11th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01004-FJM Document 24 Filed 12/14/09 Page 3 of 3