Opinion
21-60027 21-60028
10-27-2022
In re: CAMBRIDGE LAND COMPANY II, LLC, Debtor, v. CAMBRIDGE LAND COMPANY II, LLC; ALAN N. O'KAIN; VICTORIA E. O'KAIN Appellees. SANFORD LANDRESS; CHARLES MARKLEY; GREEN &MARKLEY P.C., Appellants, In re: CAMBRIDGE LAND COMPANY, LLC, Debtor, SANFORD LANDRESS; CHARLES MARKLEY; GREEN &MARKLEY P.C., Appellants, v. CAMBRIDGE LAND COMPANY, LLC; ALAN N. O'KAIN; VICTORIA E. O'KAIN, Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022 Portland, Oregon
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel BAP No. 20-1110, 20-1111 Brand, Klein, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and GILLIAM, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
In this consolidated appeal, Sanford Landress, Charles Markley, and Green & Markley PC (collectively "Appellants") appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") opinion dismissing their appeal for lack of standing. The merits of the appeal turn on who owns a legal malpractice claim that is currently being litigated against the Appellants in Oregon state court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Federal courts may only exercise jurisdiction where the parties establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). To establish Article III standing, Appellants must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant's complained of conduct, and (3) that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision from the court. Id. Appellants fail to establish Article III standing because they have not shown that they have suffered an actionable injury-in-fact.
Appellants claim two general injuries. First, they contend they might be subject to liability for violating the bankruptcy code's automatic stay provision if they are forced to continue litigating the malpractice case, including possible vacatur of a favorable judgment. Second, Appellants claim injury by having to continue to litigate the malpractice case under a cloud of uncertainty regarding who owns the right to bring the claim.
While fear of future injury can support Article III standing "if the threatened injury is 'certainly impending' or there is a 'substantial risk that harm will occur,'" In re Zappos.com, Inc., 888 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014)), Appellants fail to make this showing. Their fears that they will be subject to liability for violating the automatic stay or that a favorable judgment will be vacated are based on "a highly attenuated chain of possibilities" that is insufficient to support Article III standing. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013); see also Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 157-60 (1990) (dismissing writ of certiorari for lack of standing when petitioner's harms relied on a chain of events including securing habeas relief, being convicted and sentenced to death upon retrial, and an unfavorable comparison of the death sentence by the state supreme court).
Similarly, Appellants' claimed ongoing injury of having to litigate the malpractice case under a cloud of uncertainty merely rephrases the first injury and therefore cannot support Article III standing for the same reasons.
APPEAL DISMISSED
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.