Case Name: In re: John R. FUCHS, Debtor. John R. FUCHS, Appellant, v. Richard PERRILLO; Keith Whiteman, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-01
Citations: 40 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 00-56373; BAP No. CC-99-01435-MaJK
Parties: In re: John R. FUCHS, Debtor. John R. FUCHS, Appellant, v. Richard PERRILLO; Keith Whiteman, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 40
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
In re: John R. FUCHS, Debtor. John R. FUCHS, Appellant, v. Richard PERRILLO; Keith Whiteman, Appellees.
No. 00-56373.
BAP No. CC-99-01435-MaJK.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2002.
Decided July 1, 2002.
Before THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ARMSTRONG, District Judge .
The Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
This appeal is resubmitted for decision as of the date of this order.
MEMORANDUM
John Fuchs appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming a judgment entered against him by the bankruptcy court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.
The bankruptcy court decision was predicated on an interpretation of a California Court of Appeal decision involving the parties. Unfortunately, the California Court of Appeal decision was issued following the filing of the bankruptcy petition in the instant case, absent any order from the bankruptcy court lifting or modifying the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. The automatic stay applies to appeals taken from judgments entered in actions originally filed against debtors. Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir.1987). "[A]ctions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void." Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (citing Schwartz v. United States (In re Schwartz), 954 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1992)). This rule applies to actions taken by state courts in violation of the stay. Id.
Because the action of the California Court of Appeal was void ab initio as being in violation of the automatic stay, the bankruptcy court erred in relying upon it. Thus, we must reverse the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the judgment entered by the bankruptcy court, and remand for reconsideration by the bankruptcy court without consideration of the California Court of Appeal decision. We express no opinion on the merits of the decision, nor on any course of action that may be available to the bankruptcy court on remand.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.