Court Opinion

ID: 9700371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:25:00.750627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:08.266167
License: Public Domain

KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge,
dissenting in part.
I join the majority opinion on the question of issue preclusion following a California default judgment. The recent Ninth Circuit decision, Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir.2001), compels the conclusion that the California default judgment in question does not have issue preclusive effect.
The balance of the decision is an unnecessary advisory opinion on a question that is far less settled than the majority suggests. Indeed, in my view, two conflicting lines of decisions regarding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), which have not yet been reconciled, leave the entire subject in disarray.
The record developed at the trial that should occur on remand would affect the analysis of the defendant’s putative fiduciary obligations in light of § 523(a)(4). It is premature and not appropriate to decide this important question on an incomplete summary judgnent record at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, I DISSENT.