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 : C ARL C LIFFORD SISON TAKANO; LEILANI LEAC H TAKANO,

______________________________ VANESSA L. W ILLIAM S,

Appe lla nt, v. C ARL C LIFFORD SISON TAKANO; LEILANI LEAC H TAKANO,

Appe lle e s. No. 18-16162 D.C . No. 15-00108 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t

of Gua m Franc e s Ty d i ngc o-Gate wood, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding

Subm itte d

June 10, 2019 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED J UN 12 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C re ditor Va ne s sa W illia m s a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r m otions in the ba nkruptc y proc e e dings of C arl a nd Le ila ni Ta ka no. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to dism

iss for c a use unde r 11 U.S.C . § 707(a ) for an a

buse of disc re tion. She rman v . SEC ( In reShe rman ), 491 F.3d 948, 969 (9th C ir. 2007). De c isions c om m itte d to the ba

nkruptc y c ourt's disc re tion, suc h a s a

de c ision on whe the r to c onve rt a c a se from one C ha pte r to anothe r, will be re ve rse d only if “ ba se d on a

n e rrone ous c onc lusion of la w or whe n the re c ord c onta ins no e vide nc e on whic h [the ba nkruptc y c ourt] rationa lly c ould have ba se d tha

t de c i sion.” Be ne dor C

orp. v . C one jo Ente rs., Inc
. (

In reC one jo Ente rs., Inc
. ), 96 F.3d 346, 351 (9th C ir. 1996) (a lte ra tion in origina l ) (quoting Vande rpark

Props., Inc . v . Buc hbinde r ( In reW indmill Farms, Inc
. ), 841 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th C ir. 1988) (quota tions omitte d)). I The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing W illia m s ’ s m otion to dismiss for c a

use . Unde r 11 U.S.C . § 707(a ), a c ourt m a y dism i ss a ba

nkruptc y c a se for c a

use , inc luding, but not lim ite d to, unre a sona

ble de la y re sulting in pre j udic e to the c re d itors. N e ary v . Padilla (

In rePadilla ), 222 F.3d 1184, 1191
2(9th C ir. 2000) (noting the list unde r § 707(a ) is “ illustra tive and not e x ha

ustive ” ). The distric t c ourt found tha t W illia m s ha d not a

tte m pte d to show pre

judic e and tha

t the d e la y wa s pa rtia lly se lf-c re ate d a

nd thus not unre a sona

b le . Furthe r the c ourt c onside re d tha

t any de la y attributa ble to the Taka

n os did not ha

ve a substa ntia l a ffe c t on the a dm inistra

tion of thee sta

te . C ontra ry to W illia m s’ s a sse rtion, the distric t c ourt’ s foc u s on whe the r W illia m s ha d e sta

b l ishe d pre judic e wa s not e rrone o u s. The distric t c ourt wa s sim ply a sse ssing whe the r W illia m s ha d e sta

blishe d c a use ba se d on the e num e ra te d c irc um s ta nc e found in § 707(a

)(1): “ unre a sona

ble de la y by the de btor tha

t is pre j udic i a l to c re ditors.” Sim ila rly , the distric t c ourt did not pre c lude W illia m s’ s c la im be c a use she wa s not a

truste e . Afte r c onc l uding tha t W illia m s ha d not e sta blishe d c a use by de m onstra

ting unre a s ona

b le de la y pre judic ia l to c re ditors, the distric t c o urt c orre c tly note d tha t sim ply not be ing “ tim e l y ” is not a ground for W illia m s to ha ve the c a se dism isse d be c a use tha t m otion m a

y only be m a de by

a truste e unde r § 707(a )(3). The c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t W illia m s ha d fa ile d to e s ta

blish c irc um sta

nc e s c onstituting c a

use to dismiss the c a se unde r § 707(a ). II

3The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing W illia m s ’ s m otion to c o nve rt the c a se to a

C ha pte r 11 c a se . Unde r 11 U.S.C . § 706(b), a c ourt ha s broa d disc re tion to c onve rt to a C ha pte r 11 c a se ba se d on wha t “ will m o st inure to the b e ne fit of a ll pa

rtie s in inte re st.” H.R . R e p . No. 95-595, a t 380 (1977), as re printe d in 1978 U.S.C .C .A.N. 5963; S. Re p. No. 95-989, a t 94 (1978), as re printe d in 1978 U.S.C .C .A.N. 5787. Although the distric t c ourt did not e xplic itly a ddre ss the Taka

nos’ a bility to pa y , it we ighe d the inte re sts of thepa rtie s and c onc l ude d tha

t W illia m s ha d not provide d a

ny e vide nc e te nding to show tha t an involunta

ry c o nve rsion would be

ne fit the pa

rtie s. Ne ithe r ha d W i llia

m s ide n tifie d how a

c onve rsion would bene fit the Tak an os. Fina l ly , in a ddition to noting tha

t a n involunta

ry c o nve rsion c ould le ave the Taka nos “ tra ppe d in a c ha pte r 11 proc e e ding the y

do not ne e d, do not wa

nt, a n d c annot m ana ge ,” the distric t c o urt found tha

t a n involunta

ry c onve rsion ra

n c ontra ry to the Taka

nos’ inte re s t in a

quic k disc ha

rge of the ir de b ts a

n d a fre sh sta rt. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing W illia m s ’ s m otion for a

c onve rsion unde r § 706(b).

AFFIRM E D.

4