Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04670/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04670-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy cases and proceedings under title 11

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA ISABELLE HEWLETT,

Defendant and Appellant,

 v.

JANINA M. ELDER,

Plaintiff and Appellee. /

No. C 09-4670 CRB

ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY

COURT

This is an appeal from Bankruptcy Judge Carlson’s September 3, 2009, order

disallowing Patricia Hewlett’s proof of claim. After some delay, this Court is now in

possession of both parties’ papers. For the reasons the follow, the judgment of the

bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.

1. Background

This appeal arises out of Sophie Ng’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy (“the Ng Bankruptcy”). 

ER 15. Defendant Hewlett filed a proof of claim in that action in which she asserted a

secured claim against the Debtor in the amount of $1,060,000. Id. Hewlett alleged that Ng

breached a May 3, 2004, option contract that entitled Hewlett to purchase a piece of property

(“the Property”) owned by Ng. Id. Hewlett asserted that she had obtained the option after

acting as Ng’s real estate agent in the transaction through which Ng obtained the Property. 

Id. 

Case 3:09-cv-04670-CRB Document 19 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Hewlett was represented by counsel for a portion of the proceedings in the bankruptcy

court, but she submitted a filing on April 3, 2009, in which she substituted herself as counsel. 

Id. On August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff in this action, Trustee Janina Elder, served on Hewlett

a request for production of documents and a request for admissions. Id. Hewlett did not

respond to the request for production of documents. Id. Although Hewlett responded to

Plaintiff’s request for admissions, she did so two weeks late. Id. at 6. On October 19, 2007,

Plaintiff served Hewlett with a first set of interrogatories and a second request for production

of documents. Id. Defendant never responded. Id. The bankruptcy court ultimately granted

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Hewlett to comply with Plaintiff’s first request for production of

documents. Hewlett did not comply with the order. Id.

Hewlett also failed to serve a response to the Trustee’s third request for production of

documents, second set of interrogatories, and second request for admissions. Id. Hewlett

never requested an extension of time to respond to any of the discovery requests, nor did she

seek relief from the bankruptcy court’s order compelling production of documents. Id. 

On June 4, 2009, the bankruptcy court held a hearing in which it set the case for trial

on September 1, 2009. Hewlett appeared at the hearing on her own behalf. Id. By this

point, Hewlett had filed a notice of substitution that informed the Court that she would

represent herself. Id. at 161. Her counsel officially withdrew from representation at a

hearing on April 24, 2009. Id. 

On August 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to disallow Hewlett’s claim based on

deemed admissions. Id. at 6. The court heard argument on September 1, 2009. Id. Hewlett

argued that she thought she had responded to all Trustee’s discovery requests. Id. However,

despite being placed on notice by the Trustee’s motion that she had not, Hewlett failed to

bring any responsive documents to the hearing. 

The bankruptcy judge granted the Trustee’s motion to disallow the claim and entered

judgment in favor of the Trustee. This appeal followed.

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-04670-CRB Document 19 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7036 incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36

in adversary proceedings.

3

2. Standard of Review

A bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and the Bankruptcy

Court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sigma Micro Corp. v. Healthcentral.com

(In re Healthcentral.com), 504 F.3d 775, 783 (9th Cir. 2007). The reviewing court accepts

“findings of fact made by the bankruptcy court unless these findings leave the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the bankruptcy judge.” Latman v.

Burddette, 366 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 2004). A decision to impose sanctions for

noncompliance with non-jurisdictional bankruptcy procedural requirements is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion. Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 789 F.2d 705,

706-07 (9th Cir. 1986). 

3. Discussion

The bankruptcy judge disallowed Hewlett’s claim for two separate but interrelated

reasons. First, because Hewlett failed to respond to the Trustee’s requests for admission, the

judge deemed those requests admitted. Those admissions were fatal to Hewlett’s claim. 

Second, the bankruptcy judge concluded that an order precluding Hewlett from presenting

evidence to support her claim for damages was justified as a sanction for Hewlett’s failure to

obey the court’s December 12, 2007, order compelling Hewlett to produce documents. This

Court concludes that the bankruptcy judge acted well within his discretion on both counts.

As to Hewlett’s admissions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) provides that a

party who fails to respond to a request for admission is deemed to have admitted the request.1

Therefore, because Hewlett failed to respond to Trustee’s second set of request for

admissions, she is deemed to have admitted, among other things, that she breached her

fiduciary duty to debtor and that the contract between the Debtor and Hewlett that formed the

basis of Hewlett’s claim is invalid. See ER 104-07. Such admissions on their own

adequately support the bankruptcy judge’s decision to disallow the claim.

As to the order as a sanction for Hewlett’s failure to comply with court ordered

discovery, the bankruptcy judge similarly acted within his discretion. Federal Rule of Civil

Case 3:09-cv-04670-CRB Document 19 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Federal Rule of bankruptcy Procedure 7037 incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

in adversary proceedings.

3

 It is worth noting that, in the April hearing in which Attridge was permitted to withdraw as

Hewlett’s counsel, he informed the Court that he had not been paid by Hewlett and was planning to sue

her. ER 163.

4

 Hewlett does refer to her attorney’s allegedly unsatisfactory conduct in a previous appeal.

There is no explanation as to how that misconduct in any way affected the proceedings in the

bankruptcy court.

4

Procedure 37 grants courts the authority to sanction parties for failing to respond to discovery

and for failure to comply with court orders.2

 Such misconduct can also be punished under

the court’s “inherent powers” to manage its affairs. Unigard Security Ins. Co. v. Lakewood

Eng. & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992). The bankruptcy court has “broad

discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and

orderly trial. Within this discretion lies the power . . . to exclude testimony of witnesses

whose use at trial . . . would unfairly prejudice an opposing party.” Campbell Indus. v. M/V

Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). As illustrated above, Hewlett

was cavalierly unresponsive both to the Trustee’s requests and to the bankruptcy court’s

order. Therefore, it was within the bankruptcy court’s discretion to prevent Hewlett from

preventing any evidence relating to the damages she claimed to have suffered. As the

bankruptcy court noted, “[a]bsent proof of her damages, Hewlett’s claim must be

disallowed.” ER 11.

Hewlett’s brief to this Court provides no reason to second guess the bankruptcy

court’s judgment. As an initial matter, the brief is nearly incomprehensible. From what this

Court can glean from the document, Hewlett objects to the conduct of her lawyer. However,

that lawyer withdrew from the action, with Hewlett’s consent, in April of 2009,3

 and Hewlett

does not point to any specific conduct in the bankruptcy proceedings that is objectionable.4

She claims that Attridge “agreed” to appear at the September 1, 2009, trial, but has no

evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, all the evidence supports the conclusion that

Attridge was no longer involved in the case after April of 2009. Moreover, even had

Attridge made such a promise, it would not forgive Hewlett’s failure to respond to the court’s

orders or her failure to respond to Plaintiff’s request for admissions.

Case 3:09-cv-04670-CRB Document 19 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\4670\Order Affirming.wpd 5

Hewlett also claims that she “did not know about the adversary case,” and yet the

Trustee has provided numerous proofs of service for various filings. Hewlett has provided

no explanation as to how this torrent of paperwork failed to put her on notice of the adversary

case. Hewlett also appear to accuse the Trustee of harassing her. However, Hewlett

provides no example of this “harassment” other than the fact that the Trustee subpoenaed

Hewlett for a second deposition on August 7, 2009. This is hardly harassment. Without a

specific example of how the bankruptcy court supposedly abused its discretion, that court’s

order must be affirmed.

4. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, the order of the bankruptcy court is hereby

AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-04670-CRB Document 19 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 5