NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BARRY M. GOULD, No. 14-60059
Debtor. BAP No. 13-1437
______________________________
BARRY M. GOULD, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
RED HILL ENTERPRISES,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Latham, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Barry M. Gould appeals pro se from the judgment of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of
*
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).
summary judgment excepting from discharge Gould’s debt to Red Hill Enterprises
(“Red Hill”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo
BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the
bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d
1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because the jury’s findings in the state court
action satisfied the elements for “willful and malicious injury” under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(6), and California law precludes relitigation of issues decided in a prior
proceeding. See Diamond v. Kolcum (In re Diamond), 285 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.
2002) (“In determining whether a party should be estopped from relitigating an
issue decided in a prior state court action, the bankruptcy court must look to that
state’s law of collateral estoppel.”); Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223, 1225
(Cal. 1990) (setting forth elements of issue preclusion under California law); see
also Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. of Nev. (In re Ormsby), 591 F.3d 1199, 1206-07
(9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth requirements for non-dischargeability under
§ 523(a)(6)).
Because Gould’s debt to Red Hill is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(6), we need not reach whether the debt is non-dischargeable under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-60059