Opinion
22-55385
12-23-2024
In re: PETERS & FREEDMAN, Debtor. v. ZACHARY R. SMITH; JAMES R. MCCORMICK, Jr.; KYLE E. LAKIN; CHRISTINA BAINE DEJARDIN, Appellees. DAVID PETERS, Appellant,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 17, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01251-DMS-DEB
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
David Peters, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order 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 without deference to 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 review for an abuse of discretion an award of sanctions. Miller v. Cardinale (In re DeVille), 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on Peters under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 because Peters acted in bad faith and with an improper purpose in filing his bankruptcy petition. See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011; Dressler v. The Seeley Co. (In re Silberkraus), 336 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing when sanctions are warranted under Rule 9011).
Appellees' motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 43) is granted.
Peters's motion for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 50) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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). Peters's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.