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 : RIC HARD ALAN SC HOENFELD,

De btor,

______________________________ R IC HARD ALAN SC HOENFELD,

Appe lla nt, v. EDWARD HUGLER , * Ac ting Se c re ta ry of La bor, Unite d State s De pa

rtm e nt of La

bor, Appe lle e . No. 15-56871 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02220-SJO M EM O R ANDUM * *

EDWARD HUGLER , * Ac ting Se c re ta ry of La bor, Unite d State s De pa

rtm e nt of La

bor, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. No. 15-56872 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00618-SJO-AGR



# FIL ED FEB 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* Edwa

rd Hugle r, Ac ting Se c re ta ry of La bor, is substitute d

for his pre d e c e ssor, Hilda

L. Solis, Se c re ta

ry of La bor, pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe l lat e Proc e dure 43(c )(2).

** 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.TOM C O AUTO PR ODUC TS, INC ., a

c orporation, De fe nda

n t, and R IC HARD ALAN SC HOENFELD, a n individual, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2017 *** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, W ATFORD , a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, Ric ha

rd Sc hoe nfe ld a

p p e a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nts, on re m an d from this c ourt, pe rm a

n e n tly e njoining him from se rving a s a

fiduc ia ry to Em ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc om e Se c urity Ac t (“ ER ISA” ) pla n s. As thepa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e a ffirm .

* ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2W e pre viously va c ate d a nd re m ande d

the distric t c ourt’ s holding on sum m ary judgm e nt tha

t Sc h oe n fe ld’ s de bts we re nondisc ha rge a ble be c a use his a c tions c o nstitute d de fa lc ation unde r 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(4) in light of inte rve ning Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt. S e e Pe r e z v . TOMC O Auto Prods., Inc
. , 594 F. App’ x 930 (9th C i r. 2015). On re m and, Sc hoe nfe l d’ s de bt wa s sa tisfie d and the distric t c ourt the n re issue d a

n injunc tion re late d to his viola tions of ER

ISA. Sc hoe nfe ld now c ha lle nge s the portions of the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs whic h pe rm ane ntly e njoin him from “ viola ting theprovisions of Title I of ERISA” an d “ se rving a s a fiduc ia ry to a ny ER ISA-c ove re d e m

ploy e e be ne fit pla

n in thefuture .” The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de te rm ining tha

t the la w of the c a se doc trine pre c lude d Sc hoe nfe ld from

re litiga ting thedistric t c ourt’ s prior ruling tha t Sc hoe nfe ld ha d bre a c he d his fiduc i ary dutie s unde r ER ISA. Se e Unite d State s v . Ale x ande r , 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ Unde r the ‘ la w of the c a se ’ doc trine , a c o urt is ge n e ra lly pre c lude d from

re c onside ring a

n issue that ha s a lre a dy be e n de c ide d by

the sa m e c ourt, or a highe r c ourt in theide ntic a l c a s e .” (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd c ita tion omitte d)). Sc h oe nfe ld wa ive d his opportunity

to c h a lle nge the distric t

c o urt’ s ERISA ruling whe n he fa ile d to c onte st it in his initia

l a ppe a l. Se e K

e sse lring v . F/T Arc ticHe ro , 95 F.3d 23, 24 (9th C ir. 1996) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Sinc e a ppe lla nt fa ile d to ra ise this issue in its first a

ppe a l, it is 3wa ive d.” ). W e pre v iously va c ate d a nd re m ande d for the distric t c o urt to re c onside r the unre late d issue of whe t h e r Sc hoe nfe ld’ s de bt wa s disc ha rge a ble unde r the B ankruptc y

C ode , a nd did not disturb the

distric t c ourt’ s orde r a s it pe rta ine d to Sc hoe nfe ld’ s viola

tions of ER

ISA. In a ddition, c ontra

ry to Sc hoe n fe ld’ s c onte n tion, the satisfa c t ion of his de bt did not moot the injunc tive re lie f de signe d to prote c t a g a inst futureviola

tions of ER ISA. Se e F.T.C

. v . Affordable

Me dia , 179 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th C ir. 1999) (holding tha

t injunc tive re lie f is not m oot ba se d on volunta ry c e ssation unle ss the de fe nda n t shows tha

t it is “ a bsolute ly c le ar” his wrongful a c tivitie s c annot re a s ona bly be e xpe c te d to re c ur); S.E.C . v . K orac orp Indus., Inc
. , 575 F.2d 692, 698 (9th C i r. 1978) (“ An infe re nc e arise s from ille ga l pa st c onduc t tha

t future viola tions m ay oc c ur. The fa c t tha

t ille ga l c onduc t ha s c e a s e d doe s not fore c lose injunc tive re lie f.” (c ita

tions omitte d)). W e grant the Se c re ta

ry of La bor’ s M otion to Ta

ke Judic ia l Notic e . AFFIRM E D .

4