N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : LISA M
. GAR C IA,

De btor,

------------------------------ LISA M . GAR C IA,

Appe lla nt,
v. SAM EH FAW ZY,

Appe lle e . No. 22-60002 B AP No. 21-1041
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Gan, Ta y lor, a nd Fa ris, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d April 14, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B ER ZON, a nd LEE, C irc u i t Judge s. 

# FIL ED
APR 24 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Lisa

M . Ga rc ia a ppe a ls from

an a ffirm anc e by

the B ankruptc y

Appe l late Pane l for the Ninth C irc uit (the “ B AP” ) of the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s finding of nondisc ha

rge a bility . In 2007, Sa

m e h Fawz y , Ga

rc ia ’ s e x-fia

nc é , file d suit in Ariz ona sta

te c ourt, a lle ging tha

t Ga rc ia unla wfully obta ine d m one y

from the ir joint ba nk a c c ounts a

nd tra nsfe rre d title to Fa

wz y ’ s ve hic le to he rse lf. The Ariz ona jury found in fa

vor of Fa wz y and a w arde d him $174,321.98 in da m a ge s. In 2018, Garc ia subse que ntly file d for C ha pte r 7 ba nkruptc y in the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia . Fawz y

file d a n a dve rsaria l c om

pla int a lle ging tha

t Ga rc ia c ould not disc ha rge the de b t

from the Ariz ona judgm e nt. He argue d tha t the de bt wa s nondisc ha

rge a ble unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6) be c a use Garc ia

willfully and
m a lic iously

injure d him
. Afte r an initia l re m a n d from the B AP, the ba

nkruptc y
c ourt found tha

t the judgm e nt wa s nondisc ha rge a ble unde r § 523(a )(6). The B AP
a ffirm e d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d)(1). “ W he the r an a c tor be have d wilfully

and m a lic iously

is ultim a te l y a

que stion of fa c t re s e rve d for the trie r of fa c t.” B ank

s v . Gill Distrib. C

trs., Inc
. ( In reBank

s ), 263 F.3d 862, 869 (9th C ir. 2001). A ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings a re re v ie we d for c le a

r e rror. C arrillo v . Su (

In reSu ), 290 F.3d 1140, 1142 (9th C ir. 2002). De c isions to adm it

2or e xc lude e v ide nc e are re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re tion. C

a lmat C o. v . U.S. De p’t of Lab. , 364 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th C i r. 2004). Our re vie w of a

c ourt’ s e vide ntia

ry rulings c onsist of two ste ps. First, we de te rm i ne whe t

h e r the c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in a dm itting the e vide nc e . Se c ond, we de te rm ine whe the r any e rror wa s pre

judic ia l. Se e id . An e vide ntia ry
e rror is pre

j udic ia l if “ m ore proba

bly tha n not, thelowe r c o urt’ s e rror ta inte d the
ve rdic t.” Harpe r v . C

i ty of Los Ange le

s , 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d) (quoting Te nnison v . C irc us C irc us Ente r

s., Inc
. , 244 F.3d 684, 688 (9th C ir. 2001)). Assum i ng without de c iding tha

t the ba nkruptc y c ourt a buse d its disc re t ion in c onside ring the Ariz ona jury instruc tions
and ve rdic t, Ga

rc ia fa ils to de m onstra

te pre judic e . A willful a c t unde r § 523(a )(6) is a n a c t tha t de libe ra te ly

or inte ntiona lly c a

use s a n injury , “ not m e re l y a

de libe ra te or inte ntiona l a c t

tha t le a ds to injury .” K

aw aauhau v

. Ge ige r , 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998). A m a lic i ous a c t is: (1) a wrongful a c t; (2) done inte ntiona lly ; (3) whic h
ne c e ssa rily c a use s injury ; a

n d (4) is donewithout just c a use or e xc use . Pe t

ralia v

. J e rc ic h ( In re J e rc ic h ), 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th C ir. 2001). Eve n without re ly ing on the jury instruc tions a

nd the ve rdic t, the re wa s
am ple e vide nc e to support the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s finding tha

t Ga rc i a a c te d willfully and m a lic iously . The re c ord, inc luding pa ym e nt a nd busine ss re c ords,
3strongly supports Fa wz y ’ s ve rsion of e ve nts. M ore ove r, the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding Ga rc ia ’ s e xpla

n a tion for re m oving m one y from the joint ba nk a c c o unts not c re dible
. Se e Ande rson v . C ity of Be s se me r , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). Ga

rc ia c ontra dic te d he r own e xpla nation a t m ultiple points during the litiga tion, im pugning he r c re dibility . In short, wec annot sa y tha t the a dm ission of the j ury ve rdic t a nd instruc tions m ore proba b l y tha n not ta inte d the ve rdic t. Se e Harpe r , 533 F.3d a

t 1030. AFFIRM E D.

4