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 EATR IC E LUI, De

btor,
M AR GAR ET EVE-LYNNE M IYASAKI, Appe lla

nt,
v. B EATR IC E LUI, Appe lle e . No. 14-60025 B AP No. 13-1037
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kirsc he r, Dunn, a

nd Jury , B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 14, 2016 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
MAR 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).B e fore : B YB EE a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd KOR M AN, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. M argare t M iy a saki a

ppe a ls the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde r, whic h dism isse d he r untim e ly

a dve rsa ry c om pla int in B e at

ric e Lui’ s ba

nkruptc y proc e e dings. The ba nkruptc y c ourt re je c te d M iy a saki’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t he r a dve rsary

c om pla int should be de e m e d tim e ly

be c a use it re late d

ba c k to a doc um e nt she file d on tim e (he r obje c tion to Lui’ s de btor’ s pla n). An untim e ly

c om pla int c an only

re late ba c k to a doc um e nt tha

t wa s at le a st substa

ntia lly -c om

p lia n t with theFe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure ’ s re quire m e nts for a va lid c o m

p la int. And the

ba nkruptc y c ourt he ld tha t M iy a saki’ s obje c tion did not c onta in e n ough inform at ion to substa ntia lly
c om ply with Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure 8 a nd 9. The ba nkruptc y a p pe l late pa

ne l a ffirm e d. W e a lso a ffirm . M iy a saki’ s obje c tion wa s ne ve r inte nde d to be a c om pla int, a nd it doe s not c onta in e nough inform a t ion to substa

n tia lly c om ply with the fe de ra l ple a d ing rule s— s o he r untim e l y a dve rsaria l c om

pla int c annot re l a te ba c k to it. W e re vie w the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision inde

pe nde n t of the B AP’ s de c ision. Allre d v . K

e n ne r le y (In re K e nne rle y ) , 995 F.2d 145, 146 (9th C ir. 1993).

*** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Se n i or Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 2W e re vie w de novo the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s dism issa l of a

n untim e l y

c om pla int. S e e Mark u s v . Gsc hw e nd (In re Mark us), 313 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th C ir. 2002). In the ba nkruptc y c o nte xt, whe re a

pa rty file s a tim e ly

doc um e nt tha

t substa ntia lly c om plie s with the fe de ra l ple a ding rule s for a n a dve rsaria l c om

pla int (but is te c hnic a lly

de fic ie nt for som e re a s on), a nd the n file s a

n untim e ly a d ve rsaria l
c om pla i nt c orre c ting the se de fic ie n c ie s, the untim e ly c om pla int m ay

be de e m e d a s tim e ly
. Se e In reMark

us , 313 F.3d a

t 1149. Thea dve rsaria l c om pla i nts m ust substa ntia lly c om ply with Fe de ra l R

ule s of C i vil Proc e dure 8 a nd 9. Se e Fe d. R
. B ankr. P. 7008, 7009; In re Mark us , 313 F.3d a

t 1150. R ule 9(b) de m ands tha

t a lle gations of fra

ud “ be spe c ific e nough to give de fe nda n ts notic e of the pa

rtic ula r m isc onduc t . . . so tha

t the y c an de fe nd a ga inst the c ha rge and not just de

ny tha t the y hav e done anything wrong.” Bly –Mage e v . C alifornia , 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2001) (quota tion m arks om itte d). R

ule 8
re quire s tha

t “ the c om

pla int's fa c tua l a lle gations, toge t he r with a ll re a sona

ble infe re n c e s, sta

te a pla usible c la i m

for re lie f.” C

afasso, U.S. e

x re l. v . Ge n. Dy namic s C 4 Sy s ., Inc
. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha t
c om pla i nts for fra

ud m ust c o m ply both with R

ule 9's pa rtic ula rity re quire m e nt a

nd R ule 8's pla usibility re quire m e nt). W e ignore any c o nc lusory

fa c tua l or le ga l

3sta

te m e nts a nd look only

to the spe c ific fa c ts a lle ge d. Ashc roft v . Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). W e have e m

pha siz e d tha

t the touc h s tone of R

ule 8, in the ba

nkruptc y
c onte xt, is whe the r the tim e ly doc um e nt ga

ve the de btor fa ir notic e of the c la im in que stion. In reMark

us , 313 F.3d a

t 1150. To this e

nd, we have looke d at whe the r the e arlie r doc um e nt wa s “ c le arly a im e d ” a t re que sting thesa m e re lie f tha

t the untim e l y a dve rsaria l c om

pla int a sks for. In reMark us , 313 F.3d a

t 1150 (holding that a tim e ly doc um e n t

did not substa

ntia l ly c o m p ly whe re it wa s “ c le arly a im e d at
c onve rting [the de btor’ s] c a se from C ha pte r 7 to C ha

pte r 13,” and the untim e ly
c om pla i nt wa s prim arily c o nc e rne d with bringing a fra ud c la im ). M iy a saki’ s obje c tion wa s not m e re ly in te c hnic a l viola

tion of the fe de ra l ple a ding re quire m e nts for a n a dve rsa ria l c om pla int; it le ft out c ruc ia l pa rts. First, the o bje c t ion did not c o nta in fa c ts sta ting a pla usible c la im

for re lie f. Onc e we
e lim inat e the c o nc lusory

a lle ga tions from

the c o m pla int, suc h a s tha

t Lui “ m a de it
c le ar” she ne ve r inte nde d to pa y ba c k the de bt, we are le ft with the m e re a lle gation that Lui signe d a

prom issory

note and we nt into de fa

ult. Se e Iqbal, 556 U.S. a t 681–82 (ignoring a

l le ga tions tha

t the de fe n da

n t ha d knowle dge whe re the re we re no spe c ific fa c ts supporting a n infe re nc e of knowle dge ). The a lle gation tha t
som e one signe d

a note and did not pa

y it c annot be e nough to pla usibly a lle ge 4fraud. Id. (holding tha t the a l le ge d fa c ts m

u st do m ore tha

n c re a te the ba

re possibility

of lia b i lity ). M ore im porta ntly , M iy a s a ki’ s obje c tion wa s “ c le arly a i m e d” a t

de fe a ting Lui's pla n c onfirm a t ion, not c onte sting whe t he r he r c la im c ould be disc ha rge d. M iy a sak i a l le ge d in he r obje c tion tha t the pla n (1) did not provide

he r with distributions of a

va lue e qua l to the a llowe d am ount of he r c la im and (2) did “ not provide for arre ars a

nd/or on-going pa

ym e nts to junior lie

nholde rs” on the prope rty . She a lso c ha lle nge d pla n va luat ions a

nd the inc om

ple te ne ss of, a

nd ina c c ura c ie s in, the pla

n inform a tion. The se c ha lle nge s re late to the pla n's fa irne s s. Just be c a u se M iy a saki a sse rts at the e nd of the obje c tion tha t she inte n ds to file an
a dve rsary proc e e ding for fra

u d, the obje c tion c annot be sa id to ha ve give n fa ir notic e of the c la im s in the untim e ly c om pla int. Inde e d, tha

t M i y a s a ki’ s obje c tion sta te s tha t she pla nne d to file an a dve rsaria l c o m pla int in the future

shows she unde rstood tha

t the obje c tion c o uld not sta n d in for a

n a dve rsaria l c om

pla int a nd that it would not fa

irly put Lui on notic e tha

t the obje c tion wa s ope ra ting a s a n
a dve rsaria l c om

p la int. AFFIRM E D.

5