Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03237/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03237-1/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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

 On November 20, 2006, after Appellant made no objection, the Court granted the 2

motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s prior counsel. Appellant filed his opening brief on

January 23, 2007, after failing to find an attorney who would represent him on a contingency-fee

basis. See Reply 25.

Case No. C 06-3237 JF

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABRAHAM GALE,

 Appellant,

 v.

NEC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Appellees.

Case Number C 06-3237 JF

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF 1

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

[re: docket no. 1]

Appellant Abraham Gale, proceeding pro se, appeals the order of the bankruptcy judge 2

granting Appellee NEC Corporation’s motion to dismiss and disallow Appellant’s claim. For the

reasons discussed below, the Court will affirm the order of the bankruptcy court.

I. BACKGROUND

Case 5:06-cv-03237-JF Document 18 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 The underlying bankruptcy case is entitled In re PB Electronics, Inc., Chapter 7 Case 3

No. 04-51268 JRG.

 The action is United States ex rel. Abraham Gale v. Packard Bell NEC, Inc. et al., Case 4

No. C 99-1068 CB (S.D.Ala.). 

 Appellant asserted in his qui tam action that the exact relationship between the debtor 5

and Zenith is unclear. The record on appeal does not make the nature of the relationship any

clearer, but the parties do not appear to dispute that the debtor owns at least some portion of

Zenith.

2

Case No. C 06-3237 JF

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

(JFLC1)

This action arises from the bankruptcy of PB Electronics, Inc (“the debtor”). Appellant’s 3

claim is based upon a qui tam action against the debtor that was pending at the time of the

bankruptcy. In that action, Appellant alleged that Zenith Data Systems, Corp. (“Zenith”), of 4

whom the debtor is an owner, presented false and fraudulent claims for payment to the federal 5

government for personal computers provided to the Air Force and other agencies within the

Department of Defense. See Excerpts of Record Ex. 2. Appellee states that, “in its capacity as a

creditor of the bankruptcy estate and a party in interest, [NEC] objected to [Appellant’s] claim

under section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C., and filed the motion that led to the

dismissal and disallowance of Gale’s claim.” Appellee’s Brief 2.

The Court determines that the record and the briefs adequately present the facts and legal

arguments, and that oral argument would not aid the Court in its decisional process. The Court

therefore may decide the appeal without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 8012. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court reviews a bankruptcy court’s decision applying the same standard of

review used by circuit courts reviewing district court decisions. See Ford v. Baroff (In re Baroff),

105 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s factual

findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Diamant v. Kasparian (In re

Southern Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1999). 

III. DISCUSSION

Appellant first asserts that “[t]he Bankruptcy Court Judge gave no reason for his

opinion.” Appellant Brief 1. Indeed, the bankruptcy judge appears to have signed a proposed

Case 5:06-cv-03237-JF Document 18 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Appellee opposes the appeal on multiple bases, including that Appellant has abandoned 6

whatever issues he purports to have raised by his failure to provide reasoning or argument. 

Appellee Brief 6. The Court concludes that Appellant has abandoned any issues other than the

issue as to whether he is an original source. See Independent Towers of Wash. v. State of Wash.,

350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Our circuit has repeatedly admonished that we cannot

manufacture arguments for an appellant and therefore we will not consider any claims that were

not actually argued in appellant's opening brief. Rather, we review only issues which are argued

specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief. Significantly, [a] bare assertion of an issue

does not preserve a claim.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Fodor v.

Time Warner, Inc., 2007 WL 81742 (9th Cir. 2007) (unpublished decision) (applying

Independent Towers to a pro se litigant). The Court need not decide whether Appellant has

abandoned the issue of his status as an “original source” because it concludes that Appellant

cannot prevail on such an argument in any event. 

Appellant submitted a reply that consists primarily of an extended description of his view

of the facts of the case. The reply does not add significant argument regarding the “original

source” question.

 The Ninth Circuit also held that the information was publicly disclosed. Id. at 1162. 7

Appellant does not argue in his opening brief that the information at issue in the instant case, to

the extent that it is different from that in the Ninth Circuit case, was publicly disclosed. 

Appellant states conclusorily in his reply that no disclosure occurred, Reply 23-24, but he cites

no authority that would allow the Court to consider such an untimely argument or to rule in his

favor.

3

Case No. C 06-3237 JF

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

(JFLC1)

order that granted Appellee’s motion in its entirety without reciting the reasoning underlying the

order. Appellant, however, cites no authority indicating that this omission constitutes reversible

error. Appellant also asserts that “the Bankruptcy Court Judge erred based on the facts and

arguments that I presented,” id., but does not identify any specific error that the bankruptcy court

purportedly made. Appellant describes the issue before the bankruptcy court as “whether [he]

could have been an original source.” Id. at 2. Since Appellant’s three-page opening brief

focuses on this question, the Court understands this to be the issue presented on appeal.6

If allegations or transactions at issue in a qui tam suit have been publicly disclosed, a

relator may bring suit only if she was “an original source of the information.” United States v.

Northrop Corp., 5 3d 407, 411 (9th Cir. 1993). In a proceeding arising from an earlier qui tam

suit based on similar allegations to those in the instant action, the Ninth Circuit held that

“[Appellant] played an insufficient role in uncovering the [] allegations [regarding Zenith] to be

deemed an original source.” Seal 1 v. Seal A, 255 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2001). Appellant 7

Case 5:06-cv-03237-JF Document 18 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C 06-3237 JF

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

(JFLC1)

apparently sought to attack the Ninth Circuit’s holding before the bankruptcy judge on the basis

that “documents obtained by Gale after his previous qui tam testimony clearly show that Gale

had direct and independent knowledge of the information on which his allegations are based.”

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 8-9. Without explaining the specific import of these materials,

Appellant continued to assert that “[t]his [documentary evidence] proves that Gale’s testimony in

his used-part qui tam was accurate and that Defendant’s witnesses lied and committed fraud on

the court.” Id. at 10. Nonetheless, the voluminous documentary evidence identified by

Appellant does not provide a clear indication as to why the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that

Appellant was not an original source is incorrect. Even assuming that the evidence casts some

doubt upon the credibility of certain witnesses, the district court’s decision in Seal 1 appears to

have been based largely upon Appellant’s discussions with representatives of the federal

government, not upon the testimony that Appellant attacks. See Order Under Seal 196-97, Case

No. CV 96-2728 GHK (C.D.Cal. Aug. 7, 1998) (Excerpts of Record on Appeal Ex. 15). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Appellant provided the bankruptcy court with insufficient

grounds upon which to disturb the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion in Seal 1 that he was not an

original source with respect to frauds perpetrated by Zenith. This appeal provides no basis on

which to find reversible error in the bankruptcy court’s treatment of Appellant’s “original

source” arguments. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, the order of the bankruptcy court is hereby AFFIRMED.

DATED: March 23, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03237-JF Document 18 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 06-3237 JF

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Richard A. Lapping rlapping@thelenreid.com, 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Mark S. Bostrick 

Wendel Rosen Black & Dean

1111 Broadway

24th Floor

Oakland, CA 94607

Abraham Gale

5173 Waring Rd. #538

San Diego, CA 92120

James R. Grube

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

280 South First Street

Romm 3035

San Jose, Ca 95113

USBC Manager-San Jose

US Bankruptcy Court

280 South First Street

Room 3035

San Jose, CA 95113

Case 5:06-cv-03237-JF Document 18 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 5