F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

I N R E : S H A W

N D E I T Z , Debtor ,

S H A W N D E I T Z , Appellant ,

v

. W A Y N E F O R D and P A T R

I C I A F O R

D , A ppellees

. N o. 12-60036

B AP No. 11-1427

ORDER

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit B ankruptcy

Appellate Panel Pappas, Markell, and Dunn, B ankruptcy J udg es, Presiding
Arg ued and Submitted April 10, 2014 Submission W ithdrawn April 10, 2014 Resubmitted J uly

21, 2014 San F rancisco, California

F iled J uly 28, 2014

B efore: B arry

G. Silverman, W illiam A. F letcher, and J ay S. B y bee, Circuit J udg es.I N R E : D E I T Z 2

SUMMARY *

Bankruptcy Law

The panel issued an order affirming the B a nkruptc y Appellate Panel’s judg ment a ffirming the bankruptcy court’s judg ment awarding money damag es t o creditors W ay ne a nd Patricia F o rd, and ordering that the F ords’ claim be ex e mpted from discharg e.

T h e panel adopted the B AP’s opinion as its ow n

. T h e B AP held that, even after Stern v. Marshall , 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to e nter a final judg ment determining b oth the amount of the F ords’ d amag e claims ag ainst the debt o r S hawn Deitz , a nd determining that those claims w ere ex cepted from discharg e

. The B AP also held that the b ankruptcy court did n o t er r in concluding that the debt owed by D eitz to the F or d s was nondischarg eable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6).

The panel noted that discharg eability actions are c entral to federal bankruptcy proceeding s a nd are necessarily resolved during the process of allowing or disallowing c laims ag ainst the state, and that the discharg eability determination th e r e f o re constitutes a public rig hts dispute that the bankruptcy

courts may

decide.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.I N R E : D E I T Z 3

COUNSEL

Alex a nder B

. W a then (arg

ued), W athen & Associat e s , Houston, Tex a s, for Appellant.

Thomas H. Armstrong (arg ued), L aw Office of Thomas H

. Armstrong , F resno, California, for Appellees.

ORDER Chapter 7 debtor Shawn Deitz seeks review o f the B ankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“B AP”) judg ment affirming the bankruptcy cour t ’s judg ment (1) awarding money damag es to creditors W ay n e and Patricia Fo r d ; a nd (2) ordering that the F ords’ c laim be ex c e pted from discharg e

. W e have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 158( d ) , and we affirm. 1

This c ourt reviews d ecisions of the B AP d e n o v o a nd applies the same standard of review that the B AP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling

. In re Boyajian , 564 F .3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). I n o ur review, we c o n c l u d e that the well-reasoned major i t y opinion o f the B AP, I n re Deitz , 469 B .R. 11 ( B .A.P. 9th C i r

. 2 0 1 2), correctly sets f orth the law and the application of that law as appropriate in this c ase. W e therefore adopt it as our own, and we attach it as an appendix to this order.

1 Fo llo w in g o ral arg u m en t, w e w ith d r e w s u b m issio n o f t h is ap p eal p e n d in g issu an ce o f a d ecisio n b y t h e Un i ted States S u

prem e Co u r t i n Execu tive Ben efits In s. A g en cy v. Arkiso n , No

. 1 2

- 1 20 0

. T h e S u p rem e Co u rt issu ed

its o p in io n

o n J u n e 9 , 2 01 4

.I N R E : D E I T Z 4

W e further note that discharg eability actions are “central to federal bankruptcy proceeding s,” and they are “necessarily resolved during the process of a llowing or disallowing c laims
a ga i nst the estate.” Carpenters Pension Trust Fund fo r N

. Ca l

. v

. M oxley , 734 F .3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2013). “ T h e discharg eability determination

. . . . therefore constitutes a public rig hts dispute that the bankruptcy courts may decide.” Id.

AF F IRMED.I N R E : D E I T Z 5

AppendixCase: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 1 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 2 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 3 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 4 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 5 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 6 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 7 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 8 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 9 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 10 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 11 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 12 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 13 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 14 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 15 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 16 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 17 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 18 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 19 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 20 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 21 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 22 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 23 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 24 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 25 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 26 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 27 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 28 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 29 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 30 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 31 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 32 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 33 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 34 of 35Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 35 of 35