Case Name: IN RE: Andrew J. REDER, Debtor, Andrew Reder Appellant, v. Paul Fisher, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-15
Citations: 711 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 16-60028
Parties: IN RE: Andrew J. REDER, Debtor, Andrew Reder Appellant, v. Paul Fisher, Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 581
Pages: 441–441

Head Matter:
IN RE: Andrew J. REDER, Debtor, Andrew Reder Appellant, v. Paul Fisher, Appellee.
No. 16-60028
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 12, 2018 Pasadena, California
Filed February 15, 2018
Adam Apollo, Placentia, CA, for Appellant
Scott E. Shapiro, Appell Shapiro, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Appellee
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Debtor Andrew Reder appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order determining that Reder's $110,000 debt to Appellee Paul Fisher is nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP. See Scovis v. Henrichsen (In re Scovis), 249 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2001). "Because this court is in as good a position as the BAP to review the decision of the bankruptcy court, we review the bankruptcy court's decision independently." Gayden v. Nourbakhsh (In re Nourbakhsh), 67 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
After a review of the record and briefing, we affirm for the reasons stated in the BAP's well-reasoned and thorough memorandum decision entered on March 8, 2016.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.