FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: SHAWN DEITZ,

Debtor,

SHAWN DEITZ,

Appellant,

v.

WAYNE FORD and PATRICIA FORD,

Appellees.

No. 12-60036

BAP No.

11-1427

ORDER

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Pappas, Markell, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014

Submission Withdrawn April 10, 2014

Resubmitted July 21, 2014

San Francisco, California

Filed July 28, 2014

Before: Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher,

and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
2 IN RE: DEITZ

SUMMARY*

Bankruptcy Law

The panel issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s

judgment awarding money damages to creditors Wayne and

Patricia Ford, and ordering that the Fords’ claim be exempted

from discharge.

The panel adopted the BAP’s opinion as its own. The

BAP held that, even after Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594

(2011), the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority

to enter a final judgment determining both the amount of the

Fords’ damage claims against the debtor Shawn Deitz, and

determining that those claims were excepted from discharge. 

The BAP also held that the bankruptcy court did not err in

concluding that the debt owed by Deitz to the Fords was

nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4),

and (a)(6).

The panel noted that dischargeability actions are central

to federal bankruptcy proceedings and are necessarily

resolved during the process of allowing or disallowing claims

against the state, and that the dischargeability determination

therefore constitutes a public rights dispute that the

bankruptcy courts may decide.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
IN RE: DEITZ 3

COUNSEL

Alexander B. Wathen (argued), Wathen & Associates,

Houston, Texas, for Appellant.

Thomas H. Armstrong (argued), Law Office of Thomas H.

Armstrong, Fresno, California, for Appellees.

ORDER

Chapter 7 debtor Shawn Deitz seeks review of the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming

the bankruptcy court’s judgment (1) awarding money

damages to creditors Wayne and Patricia Ford; and

(2) ordering that the Fords’ claim be excepted from discharge. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we

affirm.1

This court reviews decisions of the BAP de novo and

applies the same standard of review that the BAP applied to

the bankruptcy court’s ruling. In re Boyajian, 564 F.3d 1088,

1090 (9th Cir. 2009). In our review, we conclude that the

well-reasoned majority opinion of the BAP, In re Deitz,

469 B.R. 11 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012), correctly sets forth the

law and the application of that law as appropriate in this case. 

We therefore adopt it as our own, and we attach it as an

appendix to this order.

1 Following oral argument, we withdrew submission of this appeal

pending issuance of a decision by the United States Supreme Court in

Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, No. 12-1200. The Supreme

Court issued its opinion on June 9, 2014.
4 IN RE: DEITZ

We further note that dischargeability actions are “central

to federal bankruptcy proceedings,” and they are “necessarily

resolved during the process of allowing or disallowing claims

against the estate.” Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for N.

Cal. v. Moxley, 734 F.3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2013). “The

dischargeability determination . . . . therefore constitutes a

public rights dispute that the bankruptcy courts may decide.” 

Id.

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: DEITZ 5

Appendix
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 1 of 35 6 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 2 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 7
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 3 of 35 8 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 4 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 9
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 5 of 35 10 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 6 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 11
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 7 of 35 12 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 8 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 13
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 9 of 35 14 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 10 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 15
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 11 of 35 16 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 12 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 17
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 13 of 35 18 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 14 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 19
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 15 of 35 20 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 16 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 21
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 17 of 35 22 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 18 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 23
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 19 of 35 24 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 20 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 25
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 21 of 35 26 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 22 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 27
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 23 of 35 28 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 24 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 29
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 25 of 35 30 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 26 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 31
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 27 of 35 32 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 28 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 33
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 29 of 35 34 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 30 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 35
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 31 of 35 36 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 32 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 37
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 33 of 35 38 IN RE: DEITZ
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 34 of 35 IN RE: DEITZ 39
Case: 11-1427 Document: 25 Filed: 04/23/2012 Page: 35 of 35 40 IN RE: DEITZ