Case Name: IN RE: Francky C. CARUSO, Debtor. Daniel G. Lopez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francky C. Caruso, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-23
Citations: 715 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 17-56578
Parties: IN RE: Francky C. CARUSO, Debtor. Daniel G. Lopez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francky C. Caruso, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 582
Pages: 798–798

Head Matter:
IN RE: Francky C. CARUSO, Debtor. Daniel G. Lopez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francky C. Caruso, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56578
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 13, 2018
Filed March 23, 2018
Daniel G. Lopez, Pro Se
Marvin Levy, Law Office of Marvin Levy, Sherman Oaks, CA, -for Defendant-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel G. Lopez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order holding Lopez and his attorney in civil contempt and imposing sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court's decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by holding Lopez and his attorney in civil contempt and imposing compensatory sanctions because Lopez and his attorney had notice of the discharge and intentionally filed the state court action in violation of the discharge injunction. See ZiLOG, Inc. v. Corning (In re ZiLOG, Inc.), 450 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006) (a party who knowingly violates a discharge injunction can be held in contempt under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)); Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).
Lopez's request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.