T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : S C OT T R . S MI T H, D ebt or. S C OT T R . S MI T H, A p p e lla n t, v. E N T R E P R E N E U R M E D I A , I N C ., A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 60009 B A P N o. 09- 1117 ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e N in th C ir c u it B ankrup t cyA pp el l at e P anel M a rke l l , M ont a l i , a nd J ury , B a nkrupt c yJ udge s , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED JAN 10 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 60009 2 S cottR . S m i th, a C hapt er7 d ebt or, appeal s pro se fr om the B ankrup t cy A ppe l l a t e P a ne l ’ s ( “ B A P ” ) j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the ba nkrupt c yc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d e te rm in in g th a t S m ith ’s d e b t to E n tr e p r e n e u rM e d ia , I n c . ( “E M I ” ) is nondi s c ha r ge abl e i n ba nkrupt c yunde r11 U . S . C . § 523( a ) ( 6) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 158( d) . W e r e vi e w de novo the ba nkrupt c yc ourt ’ s c onc l us i ons o f la w a n d f

o rc le a re rr o rits f

in d in g s o f

f a c t. P e tr al i a v . J

e r c i c h ( I n r e J e r c i c h) , 2 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 4 - 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f f irm . T he bank rupt cycourtprop er l y det erm i ned thatthe debti n q uest i on re sul t ed f r om aw i l l f

ul a nd m a l i c i ous i nj urya nd the r e f or e w a s nots ubj e c tt o di s c ha r ge u n d e r1 1 U .S .C . § 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) . See P a p a da kis v. Zel is (In re Zel is) , 66 F . 3d 205, 208- 09 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( s e tt i ng f orth e l e m e nt s of

§ 523( a ) ( 6) , a nd a f

f i rm i ng b an k ru p tcy c o u rt’s d eter m in atio n th at d eb to r’s c o n d u ct re su lt in g in state c o u rt’s aw ar d o f s anct i on s w as w i l l ful and m al i ci ou s and there fore sanct i on s w er e nondi s c ha r ge abl e ) . C ontr a ryt o S m i th’ s c ont e nt i ons , the ba nkrupt c yc ourtdi d not err i n g i vi ng prec l usi ve ef fe ctt o the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on det erm i ni ng that S m ith in f r in g e d o n E M I ’s tr a d e m a rka n da w a r d in g E M I a tto rn e y ’s f e e s . See C la rk v . B e arSte arns & C o. , 9 6 6 F .2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( s e ttin g f o rth e le m e n ts of i ss ue preclusi on un der f eder al l aw ); se e al

so E arthq ua ke So un d C orp. v. B um per In du s. , 3 5 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o u rt m a ya w a r da tto rn e y ’s f e e s o n ly10- 60009 3 i n ex cep t i o n al trad em arkcases w h ere d efen d an tact ed m al i ci o u sl y, frau d u l en t l y, d e lib e r a te ly , o rw illf

u lly ) . W e d o n o t co n sid erS m ith ’s co n ten ti o n s c o n ce rn in g th e b an k ru p tcy c o u rt’s f a i l ur e t o s a nc t i on E M I s uas pont e be c aus e S m i th l a c ks s t a ndi ng, a s he w a s not

“ di r e c t l ya nd a dve r s e l ya f f e c t e d pe c uni a r i l y ” bythe de c i s i on a nd he nc e doe s not qu al i fyas a “ pers on aggri eved. ” D uckor Sprad l i ng& Met zgerv. B au m T

rust (I n r e P .R .T .C ., I n c .) , 17 7 F . 3d 77 4, 77 7 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( di sc ussi ng addi t i on al p ru d e n tia l s ta n d in g r e q u ir e m e n t in b a n k ru p tc yc a s e s ) ; see a l so Fe d . R. Ba n k r . P. 90 11 (c )( 2) (provi di ng for pay m entof sanct i on s t o p arty onl y on p arty’ s m ot i on ). S m ith ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.