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 : KEVIN M . HEALY,

De btor,

______________________________ KEVIN M . HEALY,

Appe lla nt,
v. M . C YNTHIA R OSE,

Appe lle e . No. 15-60044 B AP No. 13-1200
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Pa ppa s, Kurtz , a

nd Jury , B a

nkruptc y Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d April 18, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED APR 21 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 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).B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UR GESS, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. C ha pte r 7 de btor Ke vin M . He a ly (“ He a ly ” ) a

ppe a ls the B ankruptc y Appe l lat e Pane l’ s (“ B AP” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c o urt’ s judgm e nt that He a ly ’ s de bt to M
. C ynthia R o se (“ R ose ” ) is e xc e pte d from disc ha rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 158(d), a nd we
a ffirm . 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 . The B AP c orre c t ly he ld tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not err in e xc e pting R ose ’ s sta

te c ourt fe e awards from

disc ha rge unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6). The ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly de t e rm ine d tha t the re wa s no le ga l ba sis for He a ly ’ s sta te c o urt c om

pla int a ga inst R ose and tha t He a ly ’ s c ha lle nge s to thesta te c ourt fe e
awards la c ke d m e rit. Se e Moorev . C o nliffe , 871 P.2d 204, 209 n.5 (C a l. 1994) (“ The [C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt] in Silbe r g e xplic itly

re c ogniz e d tha

t a

‘ fra udule nt c om

m unic ation’ or ‘ pe rjure d te s tim ony ’ m a de in the c ourse of a judic ia l proc e e d ing is a

bsolute l y privile g e d

and doe s not providea

ba sis for
avoiding the

fina lity of the de c ision m a d e in the litiga t ion proc e ss itse lf.” (quoting Silbe rg v . Ande rson , 786 P.2d 365, 373 (C a l. 1990))); i d. at 219 (“ [S] tate m e nts

* * * The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . B urge ss, Unite d State s C hie f Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa t ion. 2m a de in the c ourse of a priva te c ontra c tua l a

rbitration proc e e ding a

re prote c te d by the l itiga t ion privile ge e m

b odie d in [C a lifornia C ivil C ode ] se c tion 47(b)(2).” ). Furthe r, the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s findings of fa c t we re not c l e arly e rrone ous. Se e In re Straightline

Inv s., Inc
. , 525 F.3d 870, 876 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [W ] e a c c e pt findings of fa c t

m a d e by the ba nkruptc y c ourt unle ss the se findings le ave the de finite and firm

c onvic t ion tha

t a m ista ke ha s be e n c om

m itte d . . . .” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Am ple e v ide nc e supports the ba nkruptc y
c ourt’ s finding tha

t whe n He a ly , a n attorne y with signific ant litiga

t ion e xpe rie nc e , file d the sta te c ourt a c tion a c c using Rose of pe rjury , he did so knowing it la c ke d le ga l m e rit a

nd in orde r to ha

ra ss R ose . The ba nkruptc y c o urt did not err in c onc luding tha t 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6)
wa s sa tisfie d. Se c tion 523(a)(6) “ provide s tha t a n individual de btor m a

y not disc ha rge a de bt ‘ for willful and

m a lic ious injury

by the de b tor to a

nothe r e ntity

or the p rope rty

of a nothe r e ntity .’ ” In reBarboza , 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(6)). W ith re spe c t to the willful injury prong, the ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha t in filing a

nd prose c uting a

la wsuit to
annoy and ha ra ss R ose , with theknowle dge that the suit wa s m e ritle ss, He a l y a c te d de libe ra t e ly , inte ntiona lly , a nd for the purpose of injuring R ose . Se e id. (“ A willful injury is a de libe ra te or inte ntiona l injury , not m e re ly a de libe ra te or inte ntiona l ac t 3that

le a ds to injury .” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). The ba nkruptc y c ourt a lso a

ppropria te ly found tha

t the m a lic i ous injury

prong wa s
satisfie d. Se e id. (“ A m a lic ious injury involve s (1) a wrongful a c t , (2) done inte ntiona lly , (3) whic h ne c e ssa rily c a use s injury , a

nd (4) is donewithout just
c a use or e xc u se .” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The ba nkruptc y
c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t He a l y ’ s sta

te c ourt la wsuit a ga inst Rose
c onstitute d a

wrongful a c t be c a

use his c l a im s we re ba

rre d by the C a l ifornia litiga tion privile ge . Furthe r, a s the ba nkruptc y c ourt de te rm ine d, He a ly inte ntiona lly

prose c ute d the a c t ion a ga inst Rose , his c onduc t ne c e ssa rily c a use d fina nc ia l injury

to R ose , a

nd the re wa s no just c a

use or e xc use for suc h c o nduc t, pa rtic u la rly give n tha t He a ly wa s a n attorne y . The B AP a lso prope rly

re je c te d He a l y ’ s a

rgum e nts c onc e rning the sta te
c ourt judgeand the proprie ty of the sta te c ourt judgm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C ir. 1990) (“ Doc um e nts or fa c ts not pre se nte d to the distric t c o urt a

re not pa rt of the re c ord on a

ppe a l.” ); Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [O] n a ppe a l, a rgum e nts not ra ise d by

a pa rty in its ope ning brie f are de e m e d wa ive d.” ). M ore ove r, e v e n if thoseargum e nts we re prope rly be fore us, the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine would ba r the m . Se e He nric hs v

. Valle y Vie w De v . , 474 F.3d 609, 614 (9th C i r. 2007) (a sking a fe de ra l c ourt to 4de c la

re a sta te c ourt judgm e nt void “ is squa re ly ba rre d by Rook e r-Fe l dman ; a
re que s t to de c la

re the sta te c ourt judgm e n t void se e k s re dre ss from an injury
c a use d by the sta te c ourt itse lf” ); Fie

ge r v . Fe rry , 471 F.3d 637, 644 (6th C ir. 2006) (holding tha

t to the e x te nt tha

t pla i ntiff sought a

de c l ara t ion re ga

rding the pa st a c tions of thesta

te c ourt justic e s, inc luding the ir re fusa l to re c use the m se lve s in pa st c a se s, the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine p re c lude d the fe de ra l c ourts from
re vie wing thosepa st de c i sions). W e have c onside re d a

nd re je c t a s without me rit He a ly ’ s re m a ining
argum e nts. AFFIRM E D.

5