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 : B SQUARE D, INC ., a C a lifornia C orporation, dba

All C a lifornia

Funding, De

btor. DANNY WAYNE PR

YOR , Appe lla

nt, v. B SQUARED, INC ., Appe lle e . No. 13-60084 B AP No. 12-1410-Pa

M kTa M EM O R ANDUM AND OR

DER *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Pa ppa s, M arke ll, a

nd Ta y lor, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 24, 2016 ** B e fore : D.W . NELSON, GR A B ER , and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED MAY26 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 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).Pa ge 2 of 4

Danny W a

yne Pry or a

ppe a ls from

a de c ision of theB ankruptc y Appe lla te Pane l (B AP) a ffirm i n g thre e orde rs of the ba nkruptc y c ourt: one im

posing sa nc tions a ga inst him

for viola t ing the a utom a tic sta

y and disc ha

rge injunc t ion in the c ha pte r 11 proc e e dings of B Squa re d, Inc .; one de ny ing re c onside ration of an orde r dism issing his se pa ra te a dve rsary proc e e ding a ga inst B Squa re d; a nd anothe r de ny ing re c onside ra tion of a n orde r de signa

ting him a ve x a tious litiga

nt. W e a ffirm . 1. The ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

im posing c onte m

pt sa nc tions a ga inst Pry o r for viola ting the a u tom a tic sta

y and disc ha

rge injunc tion in B Squa re d’ s ba nkruptc y c a se . An a

utom at ic sta

y prohibiting “

the c om m e nc e m e nt or c ontinua

tion” of a ny pre e xisting c la im

a ga i nst B Squa

re d arose on M arc h 10, 2009, whe n B Squa

re d file d a

c ha pte r 11 ba nkruptc y pe tition, a

n d re m a i ne d in e ffe c t until M arc h 11, 2011, whe n the ba nkruptc y c o urt gra nte d disc h arge an d e nte re d the a c c om

pa ny ing injunc tion. 11 U.S.C . §§ 362(a )(1), (c )(2)(C ), 524(a )(3). Notwithsta

nding thesta

y , throughout 2010 a

n d 2011 Pry o r c ontinue d to pursue a sta te -c ourt a c tion a ga inst B Squa re d a rising out of B Squa

re d’ s fore c losure on Pry or’ s prope rtie s, a

nd he file d a

se pa ra te sta te -c ourt a c tion in April 2010 a lle ging substa ntia lly the sam e c la im s. Notwithsta n ding the disc ha

rge injunc t ion, he file d anothe r state -c ourt a c tion in Ja n ua ry 2012, im m e diate ly a fte r the ba

nkruptc y c ourtPa ge 3 of 4

sta te d its inte ntion to pe rm an e ntly e njoin him

from se e king to c olle c t

the unde rly ing de bt from B Squa re d . Pry or c la im e d not to ha

ve knowle dge of the sta

y or the disc ha

rge injunc tion, whic h would a

bsolve him

of lia bility . Se e In reDy e r , 322 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th C ir. 2003); In reBe nne tt , 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th C ir. 2002). B ut Pry o r doe s not c onte st tha

t he te stifie d unde r oa th tha t he kne w of B Squa

re d’ s c ha pte r 11 proc e e ding a s e arly

a s Ja nua ry 2010, or tha

t his c ounse l twic e c la

rifie d (c ontra

ry to Pry or’ s te lling) tha

t she a dvise d him not

to pursue the post-sta

y a c tions in sta

te c ourt. Nor doe s Pry or c o nte st tha t he le arne d

of the disc ha

rge injunc tion a

t the ve ry late st in Se pte m

b e r 2011, we ll be fore he file d his fina l sta t e -c ourt a c tion a ga inst B Squa

re d’ s a ffilia

te d e ntitie s. The c onte m

p t sa nc t ions we re e ntire ly prope r. 2. The ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Pry or’ s m otion to re c onside r the dism issa l of his c o m p la int in the se pa

ra t e a dve rsary proc e e ding. Noneof Pry or’ s la te -subm itte d

doc um e nts c a st doubt on the c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha

t Pry or fa i le d to file his a dve rsary c om p la int within the

pre sc ribe d 180-da y window a fte r having re c e ive d tim e ly notic e of the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s e ntry of the orde r c onfirm ing B Squa re d’ s ba nkruptc y pla n. Se e 11 U.S.C . § 1144. To the e x te nt tha

t Pry or c ha lle nge s the unde rly i ng dism issa l orde r, we la c kPa ge 4 of 4

jurisdic tion ove r that de c ision be c a u se Pry or did not time ly

a ppe a l from

it, a nd the late -file d m otion for re c onside ra tion did not toll the tim e for filing thea

ppe a l. Se e In re B lix se th , 684 F.3d 865, 869–70 (9th C ir. 2012) (pe r c uriam ); se e also Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 8002(a )(1), (b)(1)(B ), 9023. 3. The ba nkruptc y c ourt like w ise did not a

b use its disc re tion by de ny ing Pry or’ s m otion to re c onside r the orde r de signa t ing him a ve xatious litiga

nt. C ontra ry to Pry or’ s c la im s , the c ourt did re vie w the late -file d subm issions, none of whic h unde rm ine d the c o urt’ s c onc lusions in the unde rly i ng orde r. As with the a dve rsary proc e e ding, we la c k jurisdic tion to re solve any c ha l le nge s to the unde rly ing orde r, be c a

u s e Pry or did not time ly

a ppe a l from

it, a nd his m otion for re c o nside ra tion wa s untim e l y . Se e Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 8002(a )(1), (b)(1)(B ), 9023. 4. W e grant Pry or’ s re que st tha t we ta ke judic ia l notic e of va

rious c ourt re c o rds from

the re l a te d proc e e dings. Se e Fe d . R . Evid. 201. AFFIRM E D. Re que st for judic ial notic e G RANT E D .