N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
THOM AS M ISIK,

Appe lla nt,
v. THOM AS D’ AR C O,

Appe lle e . No. 18-55750 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-05629-AB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre B irotte , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2019 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, IKUTA, a

nd B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s. Thom a s M isik a

p p e a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa

vor of Thom a s D’ Arc o in M isik’ s a c tion a lle ging D’ Arc o’ s 

# FIL ED SEP 20 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de bt to him

wa s nondisc ha

rge a ble in ba nkruptc y unde r 11 U.S.C
. § 523. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 158(d), a nd we a ffirm
. The ba nkruptc y c o urt’ s finding tha

t D’ Arc o la c k e d fra

udule nt inte nt be c a

use he inte nde d to re pa

y t he loa n funds a nd spe nt a ll funds in furtheranc e of the de ve lopm e nt proje c t wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. Se e In reSly m an , 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th C ir. 2000). The re fore , the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not err in c onc l uding D’ Arc o’ s de bt wa s not e xc e pte d from disc ha rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(2)(A). For the sam e re a son, the ba nkruptc y c o urt did not err in c o nc luding D’ A rc o ’ s de bt
wa s not e xc e pte d from

disc ha rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(2)(B ). Se e In re C andland , 90 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th C ir. 1996). The ba nkruptc y c o urt a lso did not err in c onc luding D’ Arc o’ s de bt wa s not
e xc e pte d from disc ha

rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(4). The ba nkruptc y c o urt did not c le arly e rr in finding D’ Arc o spe nt a l l funds in furtheranc e of the proje c t. The re fore , e ve n a ssum ing D’ Arc o wa s a c ting in a fiduc ia ry c a pa c ity for purpose s of 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(4), M isik fa ile d to prove tha t D’ Arc o c om

m itte d “ an inte ntiona l wrong” ne c e ssa ry to prove de fa lc ation unde r 11 U.S.C
. § 523(a )(4), Bulloc k v . Bank C hampaign, N

.A. , 569 U.S. 267, 273 (2013), or tha t D’ Arc o e m be z z le d a ny funds, s e eIn reLittle ton , 942 F.2d 551, 555 (9th C ir. 1991). Nor did M isik provetha

t D’ Arc o’ s a c c ounting of the funds wa s a

“ gross de v iation from
2the s ta

n da rd of c onduc t

tha t a la w-a biding pe rson would observe in the a c tor’ s situa tion.” Bulloc k, 569 U.S. a t 274 (e m p h a sis omitte d) (quoting M ode l Pe na l C ode § 2.02(2)(c ) (1985)). Fina lly , the ba

nkruptc y c ourt did not err in holding D’ Arc o’ s de bt wa s not
e xc e pte d from disc ha

rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6) be c a use M isik fa ile d to prove D’ Arc o ha d a

ny inte nt to injure
. Se e In reOrmsby , 591 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D.

3