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 the M a tte r of: M AR C LEE B ASS, De

btor,
B EAC ON TALENT AGENC Y, Inc ., AKA M arc B a ss Age nc y , Inc .,

Appe lla nt,
v. M AR C LEE B ASS, Appe lle e . No. 14-56247 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-07707-JVS
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 Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd RESTANI, ** Judge
. At issue in this c a se is a

ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde r gra

nting sum m a ry 

# FIL ED
JUN 17 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 tion 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 Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judgefor the Unite d State s C o urt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.judgm e nt to B e a c o n Ta le nt Age nc y (“ B e a c on” ), holding tha

t B e a c on ha s a

nondisc ha rge a ble c l a im a ga inst a C ha pte r 7 de btor, M arc Le e B a ss (“ B a ss” ), ba se d on
a C a lifornia

sta te c ourt judgm e nt. On a

p pe a l, the distric t c ourt re ve rse d a nd
re m ande d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 to re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision. W e re v i e w tha

t de c ision de novo; theba nkruptc y c ourt’ s findings of fa c t
are re vie w e d for c le ar e rror and its c o nc lusions of la w a re re vie we d

de novo. Harm o n v. Kobrin (In re Ha rm on), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th C ir. 2001). In
re vie wing the sum

m ary j udgm e nt, we de te rm ine , “ vie wing the e vide nc e in the light
m ost fa vora ble to the nonm o ving pa

rty , whe the r the re are any ge nuine issue s of
m a te ria l fa c t a

n d whe the r the ba

nkruptc y c ourt c orre c t ly

a pplie d the substa

ntive la w.” Id.

“ [F] e de ra l c ourts . . . give pre c lusive e ffe c t

to sta te -c ourt judgm e nts whe ne ve r the c ourts of theState from whic h the judgm e nts e m e rge d would do so.” Kre m e r v. C he m . C o nstr. C orp., 456 U.S. 461, 482 (1982) (quoting Alle n v. M c C urry , 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980)). C a lifornia doe s not give pre c lusive e ffe c t to judgm e nts a

warde d in e xc e ss of the re lie f prope rly re que s te d, inc luding untim e ly notic e d punitivedam a ge s a wards. Se e Gre e nup v. R odm an, 726 P.2d 1295, 1297 (C a l. 1986) (In B ank); M offa t v. M offa t, 612 P.2d 967, 972 (C a l. 1980) (In B ank);

2B urtne tt v. King, 205 P.2d 657, 658–59 (C a l. 1949); se e a lso C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode

§§ 425.11, 580, 585. The distric t c ourt thus properly re fuse d to give pre c lusive
e ffe c t to thepunitivedam a ge s a ward in the sta

te c o urt judgm e nt. Se e M a te ra v. M c L e od, 51 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 331, 343–45 (C t. App. 2006). W ithout the

punitive dam a ge s a

ward, the de fa

ult judgm e nt did not sa

tisfy the re quire m e nts for non-disc ha rge a bility unde r e ithe r 11 U.S.C . §§ 523(a )(4) or (a )(6). Unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(4), B e a c on did not e sta blish tha t B a ss wa s a c ting in a fiduc ia

ry c a pa c ity , se e C a l -M ic ro, Inc . v. C an tre ll (In re C antre ll), 329 F.3d 1119, 1125–26, 1128 (9th C ir. 2003), or tha t he a c te d with the re quisiteinte nt for purpose s of e m

be z z le m e nt, c om

pa re Transa m e ric a C om m e rc ia l Fin. C orp. v. Little ton (In re Little ton), 942 F.2d 551, 555–56 (9th C ir. 1991) (holding tha t
e m be z z le m e nt re quire s fra

udule nt inte nt), with B urle sc i v. Pe te rse n, 80 C a l. R ptr. 2d 704, 706 (C t. App. 1998) (holding tha t in C a lifornia , c onve rsion doe s not
re quire inte nt to de fra

ud). Additionally , unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6), B e a c on did not e sta blish a willful a nd m a lic ious injury . Se e Pe kla r v. Ike rd (In re Pe kla

r), 260 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ A judgm e nt for c onve rsion unde r C a l ifornia la w . . . doe s not, without m

ore , e sta blish tha t a de bt a rising out of tha

t judgm e nt is non-disc ha

rge a ble unde r § 523(a )(6).” ). AFFIRM E D.

3