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 : PETER

EM A NUEL KVASSAY, De

btor, PETER EM ANUEL KVASSAY, Appe lla

nt, v. R OB ER T KVASSAY, Truste e of the Kva ssa y Fa m ily Trust Da te d Fe brua

ry 26, 1993; R USSAKOW , GREENE AND TAN, LLP, Appe lle e s. No. 14-56410 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-08380-ODW 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 Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 10, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED JUN 15 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 : GOULD a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd RESTANI, *** Judge
. Appe lla nt Pe t e r Kva ssa

y (Pe te r) a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s dism issa l of Pe te r’ s a dve rsary proc e e d ing a ga inst R obe rt Kva ssa

y a s truste e of the Kva ssa

y Fa m ily Trust (R obe rt). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d)(1). Pe te r’ s c onte ntions on a

ppe a l a rise from his C h a p te r 7 ba nkruptc y filing a nd the a c c om

pa ny ing a utom a tic sta

y . Se e 11 U.S.C . § 362(a ) (providing for a n im m e diate a u tom atic sta

y on the de btor’ s a sse ts upon a ba nkruptc y filing). “ W e re vie w de nov o the distric t c ourt’ s de c isions on a n a ppe a l from a

ba nkruptc y c ourt.” In reBle ndhe im , 803 F.3d 477, 489 (9th C ir. 2015). W e a l so re vie w de novo a ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision to dism

iss a n a c t ion for fa i lure to sta

te a c la im
. Barrie ntos v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N .A. , 633 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th C ir. 2011). B e fore Pe te r file d

for ba n kruptc y , R obe rt brought a sta te c ourt proba

t e a c tion se e king to e vic t Pe te r from the fa m ily

trust’ s re a l prope rty

an d to offse t Pe te r’ s distributive sha

re in the trust. Theprobate c ourt issue d a n orde r e vic ting Pe te r from

the prope rty , a

nd a third pa rty poste d a $216,000 c a sh de posit a s a n a ppe a l bond. W

h e n a C a lifornia

a ppe lla te c ourt a ffirm e d the e vic tion, R obe rt

*** The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judge for the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rna tiona l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion. 2m ove d for re le a s e of the a ppe a l bond funds. On the m orning tha

t the probate c ourt wa s sc he d

ule d to hold a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring on R obe rt’ s m o tion, Pe t e r file d for ba nkruptc y . Though a ll pa

rtie s a nd the probate c ourt kne wa b out Pe te r’ s ba nkruptc y , the he aring we n t a he a d a s pla

nne d, but theprobate c ourt e xpla ine d tha t it would not re a c h its de c ision until R obe rt obta i ne d re lie f from the a u tom a tic sta

y . The ba nkruptc y c o urt subse que ntly gran t e d tha t re lie f, te rm inat ing the a utom a t ic sta

y with re spe c t to the probate c ourt proc e e d ings a nd a nnulling the

sta y re troa c tive ly

to the filing da

t e of Pe te r’ s ba

nkruptc y pe tition. This re lie f, howe ve r, ha d two c onditions: (1) tha t R obe rt “ is to join the

ba n kruptc y truste e a s the re a l pa rty in inte re st” in the probat e c ourt proc e e dings, a n d (2) tha t R obe rt would not try to e nforc e any

sta te c ourt judgm e nt without first obta i ning ba nkruptc y c ourt a pprova l . R obe rt duly

we nt ba c k to proba

te c ourt, m ove d to join the ba nkruptc y truste e a s a

pa rty , a nd file d the truste e ’ s de c la ra tion. B ut be fore granting the joinde r m otion, theprobate c o urt issue d a judgm e nt in fa

v or of R obe rt, orde ring that a ppe a l bond funds be re le a se d in the am o unt of $192,660. Afte r re c e iving his ba

nkruptc y disc ha rge , Pe te r brought thec urre nt a dve rsary proc e e ding. The c o m

pla int a l le ge s tha

t R o be rt viola

te d the a utom a tic sta y unde r 11 U.S.C . § 362(k)(1) by : (1) pa rtic ipating in the

probat e c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry he a ring, de spite his knowle dge of the C ha pte r 7 ba nkruptc y filing; a nd 3(2) proc e e ding a ga inst Pe te r in proba te c o urt, without first c om ply ing with a ll c onditions in the

ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s re lie f from

sta y orde r. The ba

nkruptc y c ourt dism isse d the c om

pla int unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), holding that R obe rt a bide d by its orde r’ s c onditions a

nd ha d not viola

te d the a utom a tic sta y . The distric t c o urt a gre e d, a nd we a ffirm
. Though a ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s a

utom a tic sta

y “ s we e ps broa dly ,” In re

Gruntz , 202 F.3d 1074, 1081 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ), ba nkruptc y judge s c a n orde r re lie f from it, inc luding “ te rm inating, a nnulling, modify ing, or c onditioning” the sta y , 11 U.S.C . § 362(d), a

nd tha t re lie f m ay

be a pplie d re troa c tive ly , s e e In reN at’l Env tl. W aste C orp. , 129 F.3d 1052, 1054 (9th C ir. 1997). R e troa c tive re lie f c an va lida te a c ts tha t othe rwise would viola

te the a utom a tic sta

y . In reK

i ssinge r , 72 F.3d 107, 108–09 (9th C ir. 1995). He re , the ba nkruptc y c ourt a

nnulle d the a

utom a tic sta

y re troa c tive ly

to the filing da

t e of Pe te r’ s ba

nkruptc y pe tition. Thus, the

que stion whe the r R obe rt’ s pa

rtic ipation in the

probate c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry he a ring wa s a viola tion of thea

utom a tic sta

y is irre le va

nt. The ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s re troa c tive annulm e nt va lida

te d R obe rt’ s pre v ious a c tions. Se e id. R obe rt a lso did not viola

te the a utom a tic sta

y by proc e e ding in proba

t e c ourt be fore the probate c ourt rule d on the m otion to join the ba nkruptc y truste e a s a pa rty . The pla in te xt of the ba nkruptc y c o urt’ s orde r granting re lie f from the sta y 4re c i te s e xplic itly that “ t he sta y of 11 U.S.C . § 362(a ) is ” te rm inate d a nd a nnulle d re troa c tive ly , not tha

t it will be te rm inate d a

nd a nnulle d onc e the two c onditions have be e n fulfille d . M ore ove r, we give de fe re nc e to the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of its own orde rs a nd will not ove

rturn a n inte rpre tation unle ss we are c onvinc e d tha

t it a m o unts to a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se e Roge rs v . Alask a S.S., C o. , 290 F.2d 116, 123 (9th C ir. 1961); In re W allac e , 490 B .R . 898, 906 (B .A.P. 9th C ir. 2013). He re , the b a nkruptc y c ourt c onside re d

its own orde r and e xpla ine d that the re lie f wa s im

m e diate an d tha

t R o be rt ha d followe d the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s c onditions by

m o v ing to join the

truste e . Give n the pla in m e aning of theorde r’ s te xt, the b ankruptc y

c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in its inte rpre tation. Se e Roge rs , 290 F.2d a

t 123. AFFIRM E D .

5