NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, Jr., No. 21-55153
Debtor, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01641-JGB
______________________________
CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, Jr., MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
STEVEN M. SPEIER, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Clifford Allen Brace, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s July 22, 2020 civil contempt order against Brace.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo a district
court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of
review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v.
Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.
1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding Brace in civil
contempt for violating the automatic stay because the trustee showed by clear and
convincing evidence that Brace knew of the automatic stay and refused to cure his
violation. See Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th Cir.
2003) (a party seeking an order of contempt has the burden to show by clear and
convincing evidence that the contemnor violated the automatic stay (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Brace’s contentions that the bankruptcy court
lacked jurisdiction and that the bankruptcy judge was biased against him.
Brace’s motion for stay (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55153