Court Opinion

ID: 9389442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:45.591814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.015955
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      APR 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CHRISTOPHER PAUL RABALAIS,                  No.   21-60025

                   Debtor,                         BAP No. 20-1216

------------------------------
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER PAUL RABALAIS,

                   Appellant,

  v.

SETH LEON,

                   Appellee.

                             Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                              Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
               Gan, Faris, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                                 Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:        CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

       Christopher Paul Rabalais appeals pro se from the decision of the

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing

creditor Seth Leon to dismiss voluntarily an adversary proceeding. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s

conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Decker v. Tramiel (In re

JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

      The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Leon to

dismiss voluntarily his adversary complaint because Rabalais failed to show legal

prejudice. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth

standard of review and stating a court “should grant a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some

plain legal prejudice as a result.”).

      We reject as meritless Rabalais’s contentions concerning res judicata and

whether the judgment debt is dischargeable.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   21-60025