NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : JAY P. C L ARK,

De btor,

______________________________ JAY P. C L ARK,

Appe lla nt,
v. JEREM Y J. GUGINO, C ha pte r 7 Truste e , Appe lle e . No. 16-60026 B AP No. 15-1065
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pa ne l Kirsc he r, Fa ris, a

nd Jury , B a

n kruptc y Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d July 10, 2017 ** Portla nd, Ore gon 

# F IL ED
JUL 12 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 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).Pa ge 2 of 3

B e fore : WATFORD a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HHAB R IA, *** Distric t Judge
. 1. The ba

nkruptc y c ourt ha d jurisdic t ion to he ar the C ha pte r 7 truste e ’ s
re que s t for de nia l of a

disc ha rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 727(a ). The ba nkruptc y c ourt
re ta ine d jurisdic tion ove r a ll a spe c t s of the c a se not involve d in the a ppe a ls from the c onve rsion a

n d substa ntive c onsolida

tion orde rs. S

e e 28 U.S.C
. § 158(d)(2)(D); In re She rman , 491 F.3d 948, 967 (9th C ir. 2007). B e c a use the
a ppe a ls did not dire c tly

involve the de nia l-of-disc ha rge proc e e d ing, the ba

nkruptc y
c ourt re ta ine d jurisdic t ion to re s olve the truste e ’ s re que st for re lie f in tha t proc e e ding. 2. The ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly

de nie d Ja y P. C la rk a disc ha rge unde r § 727(a ). The c ourt m ay

de ny a disc ha rge unde r § 727(a )(2)(B ) if the de btor, “ with inte nt to hinde r, de la

y , or de fraud a

c re d itor,” dispose d

of or c onc e a le d prope rty

of the e sta te . The ba

nkruptc y c ourt did not c le arly

e rr in finding tha

t C la rk inte nde d to hinde r and de fraud his c re ditors, give n the nature and m a gnitude of the a sse ts that he fa ile d to re port. This is suffic ie nt e vide nc e to prove fra udule nt inte nt. In re Re tz , 606 F.3d 1189, 1198–99 (9th C ir. 2010). The c ourt c onside re d C la rk’ s

* * * The Honora

ble Vinc e G. C hha

bria , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.Pa ge 3 of 3

e xpla na tions for his fa i lure to re port his a sse t s a nd found the m

unpe rsua sive . The
c ourt did not c le arly

e rr in tha t re ga rd e ithe r. The ba nkruptc y c o urt a lso prope rly

de nie d C la

rk a disc ha rge unde r § 727(a )(4)(A), whic h

pe rm its de nia l of a

disc ha rge if the de btor knowingly and fraudule ntly m a d e a

fa lse oath in c onne c tion with the c a s e . Tha

t provision a

pplie s if “ (1) the de btor m a de a

fa lse oath in c onne c tion with the c a s e ; (2) the oa th re late d to a m a t e ria l fa c t ; (3) the oat h wa s m a de knowingly ; a

nd (4) the oath wa s m a de fraudule ntly
. ” Id. a t 1197 (c ita tion om itte d). The ba

nkruptc y c ourt c onside re d C la rk’ s te stim ony

re ga rding his inte

nt, his re l ia

nc e on c ounse l, a

nd his omitte d prope rty , a

nd found tha

t te stim ony

le ss c re dible tha

n the e vide nc e e sta

blishing tha

t C la rk m a de a fa l se oath knowingly and fra udule ntly . The re wa s no c le a r e rror in that de te rm ination. B e c a use the ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly

de nie d C la

rk a disc ha rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 727(a )(2)(B ) and (a )(4)(A), we ne e d not a ddre ss C la rk’ s argum e nts unde r § 727(a )(3) a nd (a )(6)(A). AFFIRM E D.