FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JAMES LARRY SACCHERI; No. 12-60082
JUDITH ANN SACCHERI,
B.A.P. No. 12-1269-JuKiD
Debtors,
________________________
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES LARRY SACCHER,
Appellant,
v.
ST. LAWRENCE VALLEY DAIRY;
JUDITH ANN SACCHERI,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
for the Ninth Circuit
Jury, Kirscher, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2015
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.**
James Saccheri appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order finding that Saccheri owed the
St. Lawrence Valley Dairy (“Dairy”) a nondischargeable debt in the amount of
$492,006.57. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1295. We
conduct “an independent review of the bankruptcy court’s decision without
deferring to the BAP,” In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted), applying the same standard of review that the BAP
applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. In re Boyajian, 564 F.3d 1088, 1090
(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Saccheri first contends that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that
the Dairy justifiably relied on Saccheri’s representations concerning the funds he
pocketed. Whether the Dairy justifiably relied on Saccheri’s representations is a
question of fact reviewed for clear error. In re Deitz, 760 F.3d 1038, 1051 (9th Cir.
2014). In making its determination, the bankruptcy court relied heavily on the live
testimony of Saccheri and the Dairy’s other board members. Where the
bankruptcy court’s findings are based on the relative credibility of witnesses, they
**
The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
2
are entitled to deference. Id. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding
that the Dairy justifiably relied on Saccheri’s representations.
Saccheri next contends that the BAP erred in determining that the applicable
statute of limitations did not bar recovery of any debt Saccheri owed to the Dairy.
Under California law, the Dairy had three years to bring its fraud action, and the
cause of action did not accrue until 2007. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d).
Based on the witnesses’ testimony, the bankruptcy court found that the Dairy’s
other board members did not discover Saccheri’s financial misconduct until 2007.
Again, the bankruptcy court’s findings are entitled to deference. Therefore, the
statute of limitations had not yet run when the Dairy filed suit against Saccheri in
2009.
Finally, Saccheri contends that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding
that Saccheri caused $492,006.57 in damages to the Dairy. Reversal of a
bankruptcy court’s damages award “is only warranted if ‘the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.’” Anderson v. Bessmer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985).
Reviewing the record, we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s damages finding
did not constitute clear error.
AFFIRMED.
3