in re: jowell a. hernandez and anna lee g. hernandez, 9th cir. bap (2013)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
1/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
* Thi s di sposi t i on i s not appr opr i at e f or publ i cat i on.Al t hough i t may be ci t ed f or what ever per suasi ve val ue i t mayhave ( see Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1) , i t has no pr ecedent i al val ue.See 9t h Ci r . BAP Rul e 8013- 1.
- 1-
UNI TED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
OF THE NI NTH CI RCUI TI n r e: ) BAP No. NV- 12- 1375- J uKi D
)J OWELL A. HERNANDEZ and ) Bk. No. 10- 15867ANNA LEE G. HERNANDEZ, )
)Debt or s. )
______________________________))
HAI NES & KRI EGER, L. L. C. , ) )
Appel l ant , )
)v. ) M E M O R A N D U M*
)NATI ONAL CAPI TAL MANAGEMENT )LLC, )
)Appel l ee. )
______________________________)
Ar gued and Submi t t ed on J anuar y 25, 2013at Las Vegas, Nevada
Fi l ed - Mar ch 4, 2013
Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Bankrupt cy Cour tf or t he Di st r i ct of Nevada
Honor abl e Br uce T. Beesl ey, Bankrupt cy J udge, Presi di ng_____________________________________
Appear ances: Davi d Kr ei ger of Hai nes & Kr i eger , L. L. C.appear ed f or appel l ant Hai nes & Kr i eger , L. L. C. ;Dust i n Andr ew J ohnson of Muckl eroy J ohnsonappear ed f or appel l ee Nat i onal Capi t alManagement , LLC.____________________________________
Bef ore: J URY, KI RSCHER and DUNN, Bankr upt cy J udges.
FILED
MAR 04 2013
SUSAN M SPRAUL, CLERKU.S. BKCY. APP. PANELOF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
2/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Unl ess other wi se i ndi cat ed, al l chapt er and sect i onr ef erences are to the Bankr upt cy Code, 11 U. S. C. 101- 1532 andRul e r ef er ences ar e t o t he Feder al Rul es of Bankrupt cyPr ocedur e and Ci vi l Rul e r ef er ences are t o t he Feder al Rul es ofCi vi l Pr ocedur e.
- 2-
Chapter 131 debt ors J owel l A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G.
Her nandez f i l ed an obj ect i on t o Nat i onal Capi t al Management ,
LLC s ( NCM) pr oof of cl ai m ( POC) cont endi ng, among ot her t hi ngs,
t hat NCM f ai l ed t o pr ovi de document at i on showi ng t hat i t hadst andi ng t o f i l e t he cl ai m or t hat i t had an enf or ceabl e debt
agai nst t hem under 502( b) ( 1) . The bankrupt cy cour t over r ul ed
t hei r obj ect i on, f i ndi ng debt or s Schedul e F, whi ch l i st ed a
cr edi t car d debt owed t o GE Capi t al / Sam s Cl ub, const i t ut ed an
evi dent i ar y admi ssi on of t he debt cont ai ned i n NCM s POC.
NCM subsequent l y sought sanct i ons agai nst debt or s
at t or neys, Hai nes & Kr i eger , L. L. C. ( Hai nes) , on t he gr ounds
t hat Hai nes cl ai m obj ect i on was not wel l gr ounded i n f act or
l aw i n vi ol at i on of Rul e 9011. NCM f ur t her al l eged t hat Hai nes
engaged i n a per si st ent pat t er n of f i l i ng mer i t l ess cl ai m
obj ect i ons i n t he pr esent case and numerous bankr upt cy cases i n
t he Di st r i ct of Nevada. The bankrupt cy cour t gr ant ed NCM s
mot i on and awarded sanct i ons, payabl e t o NCM, i n t he amount of$3, 000. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.
Wi t hout a mor e det ai l ed expl anat i on of t he r easoni ng f or
i mposi ng sanct i ons based on Hai nes per si st ent pat t er n of
f i l i ng mer i t l ess cl ai m obj ect i ons, t he manner i n whi ch t he
bankrupt cy cour t exer ci sed i t s di scr et i on cannot be det er mi ned.
Fur t her , i t does not appear t hat t he saf e har bor r equi r ement
under Rul e 9011 was met . Accordi ngl y, we VACATE t he bankrupt cy
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
3/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3-
cour t s or der and REMAND t he mat t er f or t he bankr upt cy cour t t o
pr ovi de a mor e det ai l ed expl anat i on as t o why i t consi der ed
Hai nes cl ai m obj ect i ons mer i t l ess under t he st andar ds of
Rul e 9011 i n Bankr upt cy Case Nos: 08- 21495, 09- 26913, 10- 19054,10- 20824, 10- 21466, and 10- 31316, and t o expl ai n how t he saf e
har bor r equi r ement was met .
I. FACTS
On Apr i l 5, 2010, debt or s f i l ed t hei r chapt er 13 pet i t i on.
I n Schedul e F, debt or s l i st ed a cr edi t car d debt of $2, 274 owed
t o Gemb/ Sam s Cl ub Dc. Debt ors l i st ed t he account number s
l ast f our di gi t s as 7699 and i ndi cat ed t hat t he cr edi t car d had
an open dat e of 8/ 1/ 09 and was l ast act i ve 3/ 5/ 10. They l ef t
bl ank t he cor r espondi ng col umns whi ch woul d i dent i f y the debt as
cont i ngent , unl i qui dat ed, or di sput ed.
On Apr i l 29, 2010, NCM f i l ed i t s POC ( cl ai m 4- 1) i n t he
amount of $2, 389. 44, whi ch was appr oxi matel y 5% gr eat er t han t he
sum on debt or s Schedul e F f or t hei r Sam s Cl ub cr edi t car ddebt . Under t he headi ng Account I nf ormat i on, NCM showed t he
l ast f our di gi t s of t he account number as 4623, not t he same
f our di gi t number l i st ed on debt or s Schedul e F. The
Suppl ement al Account Summar y at t ached t o t he POC st at ed, among
ot her t hi ngs, t hat NCM was t he successor t o GE Capi t al / Sam s
Cl ub, t hat t he dat e of t he l oan was 8/ 1/ 09 and t hat t he l ast
payment dat e was 3/ 5/ 10.
The Claim Objection
On Febr uar y 28, 2012, debt or s f i l ed an obj ect i on t o NCM s
POC al l egi ng t hat t he cl ai m l acked pr i ma f aci e val i di t y because
i t was based on an i nsuf f i ci ent wr i t i ng i n vi ol at i on of
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
4/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4-
Rul e 3001( c) and t hat t he cl ai m was not suppor t ed by any wr i t t en
evi dence of an enf orceabl e agr eement or a cont r act between NCM
and debt ors or between debt ors and an al l eged pr edecessor- i n-
i nt er est i n vi ol at i on of 502( b) ( 1) .Ci t i ng Campbel l v. Capi t al One Bank, 336 B. R. 430 ( 9t h Ci r
BAP 2005) and Heat h v. Am. Expr ess Rel ated Servs. Co. , I nc.
( I n r e Heat h) , 331 B. R. 424 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2005) , debt or s f ur t her
cont ended t hat t hei r obj ect i on was not si mpl y based on NCM s
vi ol at i on of Rul e 3001( c) . Debt or s asser t ed t hat t hey had
l i st ed t he cl ai m as di sput ed on t he f i l ed bankrupt cy schedul es,
t hey obj ect ed t o char ges, i nt er est and f ees t hat t hey bel i eved
wer e i ncl uded i n t he cl ai m and t hey di sput ed t hat NCM coul d
asser t a val i d basi s under st at e l aw t o enf or ce t he obl i gat i on.
Fi nal l y, debt or s mai nt ai ned t hat t hei r obj ect i on was suppor t ed
by the di st r i ct cour t case, I n r e Tr an, 2007 WL 1470900 ( S. D.
Tex. 2007) , and ot her bankr upt cy cases f r om Texas, Okl ahoma, and
Ohi o. Debt or s ar gued t hat , col l ect i vel y, t hese cases st ood f ort he pr oposi t i on t hat a cl ai m based on a cr edi t car d debt needed
t o at t ach document at i on showi ng some ver i f i cat i on of owner shi p
by t he cl ai mant when t he debt has been t r ansf er r ed or assi gned
t o compl y wi t h Rul e 3001( c) and, i f such document at i on was not
at t ached, t he POC was not ent i t l ed t o pr i ma f aci e val i di t y under
Rul e 3001( f ) . I n t hat event , debt or s submi t t ed t hat t he bur den
of pr oof r emai ned on t he cr edi t or ( ci t i ng I n r e Long,
353 B. R. 1, 14 ( Bankr . D. Mass. 2006) ( POC not ent i t l ed t o pr i ma
f aci e val i di t y when document at i on evi denci ng secur i t y i nt er est
or pr oof of per f ect i on i s not at t ached t o POC) and I n r e Whi t e,
2008 WL 269897 ( Bankr . N. D. Tex. 2008) ( not i ng that whi l e cl ai m
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
5/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 I t r emai ns a myst er y as t o what t he l ast f our di gi t s oft he account number actual l y ar e.
- 5-
obj ect i on ar ose f r om t he l ack of document at i on, t he bur den was
on credi t or t o pr ove owner shi p of t he cl ai m i n the same manner
as i f t hey wer e sui ng t he debt or i n st at e cour t ) ) . For al l
t hese r easons, debt or s r equest ed t hat NCM s cl ai m be di sal l owed.NCM f i l ed a r esponse r ei t er at i ng t he i nf or mat i on on t he
Suppl ement al Account Summary. NCM admi t t ed t hat i t s POC di d not
have suppor t i ng document s at t ached, but argued t hat i t s POC had
t he account s uni que i dent i f i er s: ( 1) t he car d was i ssued by
GE Capi t al , i ssuer of Sam s Cl ub credi t car ds; ( 2) t he si xt een
di gi t account number cont ai ned t he di gi t s 7699 as i ndi cat ed on
debt or s Schedul e F; ( 3) t he dat e of t he l oan was 8/ 1/ 09; and
( 4) t he bal ance of $2, 389. 44 was owed. Wi t h r espect t o t he
account number, NCM poi nt ed out t hat debt ors Schedul e F and
NCM s POC di scl osed di f f er ent f our di gi t por t i ons of t he same
si xteen di gi t account number . 2 NCM al so poi nt ed out t hat
debt or s Schedul e F l i st ed, wi t hout di sput e, an unsecur ed cl ai m
f or t he cr edi t card debt owed t o Sam s Cl ub, wi t h an accountcont ai ni ng t he di gi t s 7699, havi ng an opened dat e of 8/ 1/ 09 and
owi ng a bal ance of $2, 274. I n ot her wor ds, NCM ar gued t hat i t s
POC had al most i dent i cal i nf ormat i on about t he debt owed t o
Sam s Cl ub as t he undi sput ed l i st i ng i n debt or s Schedul e F.
Ci t i ng I n r e Mi nbat i wal l a, 424 B. R. 104, 116 ( Bankr. S. D. N. Y.
2010) , NCM f ur t her asser t ed t hat debt or s j udi ci al admi ssi on
t hat t hey owed t he debt shi f t ed t he bur den t o t hem t o ref ut e the
cl ai m even t hough NCM s POC may have l acked pr i ma f aci e val i di t y
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
6/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 These obj ect i ons are not par t of t he r ecor d on appeal .However , our cur sory r evi ew of t he var i ous pl eadi ngs whi ch ar e ont he docket shows t hat i ndeed Hai nes f i l ed t he i dent i cal obj ect i ont o ni ne ot her POCs. Thi s case ampl y demonst r ates the pr obl emswhi ch ar i se due t o boi l er pl at e obj ect i ons one si ze does not f i tal l .
- 6-
f or l ack of suf f i ci ent document at i on.
NCM s r emai ni ng ar gument was t hat Hai nes mass produced
i t s cl ai m obj ect i ons whi ch wer e not hi ng mor e t han a col l ect i on
of gener al r est at ement s of t he l aw t hat [ d] ebt or s counsel usesas a f acade t o gi ve t he appear ance t hat i t s papers ar e somehow
not f r i vol ous. NCM i ndi cat ed t hat Hai nes f i l ed ni ne ot her
obj ect i ons i n debt or s case whi ch wer e i dent i cal . 3 NCM f ur t her
i dent i f i ed numer ous bankrupt cy cases i n t he Di st r i ct of Nevada
wher e Hai nes al l egedl y f i l ed mer i t l ess cl ai m obj ect i ons
Bankr upt cy Case Nos. 08- 21495, 09- 26913, 10- 20824, 10- 21466, and
10- 31316. NCM asser t ed t hat i t gave debt or s counsel t he
r equi r ed 21- day not i ce under Rul e 9011( c) ( 1) ( A) and al so not ed
t hat i t mi ght r equest t he cour t t o or der debt or s counsel t o pay
i t s f ees associ at ed wi t h r espondi ng t o obj ect i ons r el at ed t o
cl ai m 4- 1 i n debt or s case and r espondi ng t o obj ect i ons t o
cl ai m 9- 1 i n Bankrupt cy Case No. 10- 19054.
On Apr i l 17, 2012, t he bankr upt cy cour t hear d argument ondebt or s cl ai m obj ect i on and over r ul ed i t . The t r anscri pt
st at es i n r el evant par t :
THE COURT: I have l ooked at your pl eadi ngs. I m goi ng t oover r ul e your obj ect i on. Your f i r m, not you, but your f i r m . . . has I t hi nk a pat t er n of f i l i ng obj ect i ons t hat have nomer i t what soever . Go back t o your of f i ce and t el l t hem t o st opbecause i f I get mor e of t hese I m goi ng t o st ar t sanct i oni ngyour f i r m. Appr oxi mat el y, how much t i me di d i t t ake you t ooppose thi s?
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
7/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 7-
MR. ALDOUS [ si c] : Your Honor , I m sor r y. I l l have t o got hr ough and l ook at my bi l l i ng f or t hi s one.
THE COURT: Okay. I m not goi ng t o sanct i on t hem t hi st i me. But i f I see any mor e of t hese, I m goi ng t o st ar tsanct i oni ng pr obabl y [ $] 1, 000 or $2, 000, and I don t t hi nk your
f i r m want s t o have t hat happen, but st op f i l i ng f r i vol ousobj ect i ons.
MR. ALDOUS: Sur e. And, your Honor , i f I may speak i n ourdef ense? I n t hi s case t her e s r eal l y not hi ng t yi ng Nat i onalCapi t al Management t o t he Sam s Cl ub debt . The onl y evi dence hepresented was t he debtors own schedul es sayi ng t hey owed moneyt o Sam s Cl ub.
THE COURT: That s an admi ssi on. That s an evi dent i ar yadmi ss i on.
MR. ALDOUS: But he s not Sam s Cl ub.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MUCKLEROY: Your Honor , t hat t r ansf er occur r ed pr i or t ot he f i l i ng of t he cl ai m, so we wer en t r equi r ed t o f i l e t hatdocument at i on. I f t he obj ect i on speci f i cal l y st at ed t hat t her ewas an i ssue regar di ng t hat , t hat s what we were pr ovi ded.However , t he obj ect i on st ates a f al se st at ement , your Honor ,actual l y. I t st at es on page 3, [ i ] t di sput es t he obj ected- t ocl ai m on t he f i l ed bankr upt cy schedul es. That i s bl at ant l yf al se.
THE COURT: I agr ee. I agr ee. Your obj ect i on i s
over r ul ed. Go back and t el l your of f i ce, al l t he l awyer s whowor k ther e, t hat t hey ve got t o st op doi ng t hi s and al l t hepar al egal s t hat wor k t her e that t hey ve got t o st op doi ng t hi s.
MR. ALDOUS: Under st ood.
The Sanctions
On May 24, 2012, NCM f i l ed i t s Rul e 9011 mot i on f or
sanct i ons agai nst Hai nes. NCM asser t ed t hat t he basi s f or
debt or s obj ect i on t o i t s POC was t hat t hey di sput ed t he cl ai m
on t hei r Schedul es. Accor di ng t o NCM, debt ors counsel made a
pat ent l y f al se f act ual cont ent i on t hat ha[ d] no evi dent i ar y
suppor t and t her ef or e, t hey wer e subj ect t o sanct i ons. NCM
f ur t her ar gued t hat t her e was no l egal basi s f or di sal l owance of
i t s i nsuf f i ci ent l y document ed cl ai m when t he cl ai m cor r esponded
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
8/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8-
t o a schedul ed and undi sput ed debt . Thus, NCM argued, t he
r emedy of di sal l owance was not warr ant ed by exi st i ng l aw. NCM
al so agai n not ed Hai nes per si st ent pat t er n of f i l i ng basel ess
cl ai m obj ect i ons i n bankr upt cy cases i n t he Di st r i ct of Nevada.The mot i on made r ef er ence t o NCM s compl i ance wi t h t he saf e
har bor but di d not at t ach t he l et t er s or pr oposed mot i on t o
demonst r at e t he pr oper t i mel i ne.
On J une 12, 2012, Hai nes f i l ed i t s opposi t i on t o NCM s
mot i on f or sanct i ons. Hai nes ar gued t hat debt or s cl ai m
obj ect i on met t he st andar ds f or Rul e 9011 because i t bel i eved
NCM s POC was def ect i ve. Hai nes acknowl edged t hat whi l e t he POC
r ef erenced a debt schedul ed by debt ors, i t di d not show how NCM
acqui r ed t he pr i or cr edi t or s r i ght s. Hai nes f ur t her cont ended
t hat i t s var i ous case ci t at i ons suppor t ed i t s posi t i on.
Fi nal l y, Hai nes mai nt ai ned t hat NCM s mot i on f or sanct i ons under
Rul e 9011 was pr ocedur al l y def ect i ve because NCM f i l ed i t s
mot i on af t er t he bankrupt cy cour t had al r eady deci ded t hemat t er , t her eby depr i vi ng Hai nes of t he saf e har bor per i od and
i t s abi l i t y t o wi t hdr aw t he obj ect i on. I n t he end, Hai nes
i nf or med t he bankrupt cy cour t t hat i t had changed i t s pract i ces
t o pr ovi de mor e cl ar i t y i n i t s obj ect i ons t o cl ai ms r egar di ng
speci f i c def ects.
On J une 25, 2012, t he bankr upt cy cour t hear d t he mat t er .
At t he hear i ng, t he bankrupt cy cour t cl ar i f i ed t hat i t had not
pr evi ousl y deni ed sanct i ons and that NCM s counsel sent Hai nes
t wo l et t er s, one at t he end of Mar ch and t he other on Apr i l 3,
2012, pr i or t o t he Apr i l 17, 2012 hear i ng on t he cl ai m
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
9/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 The hear i ng t r anscr i pt cont ai ns a ver bal exchange bet weent he cour t and NCM s counsel whi ch makes i t cl ear t he cour t di dnot have copi es of t he l et t er s or any pr oposed mot i on.
5 Hai nes cl ai m obj ect i ons wi t h r espect t o t hese cases ar enot i n t he r ecor d on appeal nor ar e t he t r anscr i pt s of t he
( cont i nued. . . )
- 9-
obj ect i on. 4 Those l et t er s pur por t edl y al er t ed Hai nes of t he
Rul e 9011 vi ol at i on, but t he cour t made no speci f i c f i ndi ng t hat
t he l et t er s act ual l y compl i ed wi t h t he saf e har bor r equi r ement
under Rul e 9011( c) ( 1) ( A) . NCM s counsel r ei t er at ed t hat i tpur sued t he mot i on because Hai nes engaged i n a persi st ent
pat t er n of f i l i ng obj ect i ons t o i t s cl ai ms and t hen, af t er NCM
r esponded and came t o cour t , Hai nes woul d wi t hdr aw t he
obj ect i on. Appar ent l y because i t had f ound debt or s admi t t ed
t he debt i n t hei r Schedul es, t he bankrupt cy cour t pl aced t he
bur den of pr oof on Hai nes t o come f ort h wi t h evi dence t hat NCM
was not t he successor i n i nt er est t o GE Capi t al / Sam s Cl ub. The
cour t asked Hai nes i f i t had any such evi dence and Hai nes
r epl i ed t hat i t di d not . Accor di ngl y, t he bankr upt cy cour t
awar ded NCM i t s at t or neys f ees of $3, 000 i n def endi ng t he
obj ect i ons t o i t s cl ai m i n t hi s case and t he ot her bankr upt cy
cases not ed.
On J ul y 18, 2012, t he cour t ent er ed t he or der gr ant i ngNCM s mot i on f or sanct i ons. The or der s t at ed t hat Hai nes f i l ed
obj ect i ons t o NCM s POC s i n Bankr upt cy Cases Nos. 09- 26913
( Dkt . Nos. 81, 83, 96, 97, and 112) ; 10- 20824 ( Dkt . Nos. 116,
184 and 188; 10- 31316 (Dkt . Nos. 54 and 63) ; 10- 21466 (Dkt . Nos.
69 and 95) ; 08- 21495 ( Dkt . Nos. 42, 75, 78 and 79) ; and 10- 19054
( Dkt . Nos. 83 and 85) . 5 The or der f ur t her st at ed t hat NCM f i l ed
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
10/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5( . . . cont i nued)hear i ngs on the obj ect i ons pr ovi ded.
- 10-
a mot i on i n t hi s case al l egi ng t hat Hai nes engaged i n a
per si st ent pat t er n of f i l i ng mer i t l ess cl ai ms obj ecti ons i n t hi s
case as wel l as ot her bankrupt cy cases i n t he di st r i ct . The
Cour t concl ude[ d] t hat such obj ect i ons t o NCM s cl ai ms wer ef i l ed wi t h no or near l y no i nqui r y i nt o t he ci r cumst ances,
cont ai ned f act ual al l egat i ons t hat wer e f al se and put f or t h
l egal cont ent i ons t hat wer e not war r ant ed by exi st i ng l aw and
t hat t he f i l i ng of such obj ect i ons const i t ut ed a pat t er n on
behal f of Hai nes & Kr ei ger , L. L. C. and t hat such a per si st ent
pat t er n i s l egal gr ounds f or sanct i ons pur suant t o [ Rul e]
9011( b) ( 1) - ( 3) .
The Appeal
On J ul y 23, 2012, debt or s f i l ed a not i ce of appeal of t he
order . On November 5, 2012, t he Panel i ssued an order t hat gave
Hai nes f our t een days t o f i l e a wr i t t en r esponse i ndi cat i ng
whet her i t woul d subst i t ut e as t he appel l ant and pur sue t he
appeal f i l ed by debt or s. Hai nes f i l ed a t i mel y r esponse and onNovember 7, 2012, t he Panel ent ered an order subst i t ut i ng Hai nes
as t he appel l ant i n pl ace of debt or s i n t hi s appeal .
II. JURISDICTION
The bankrupt cy cour t had j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s proceedi ng
under 28 U. S. C. 1334 and 157( b) ( 2) ( A) and ( B) . We have
j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C. 158.
III. ISSUE
Di d t he bankrupt cy cour t abuse i t s di scr et i on i n gr ant i ng
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
11/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11-
NCM s mot i on f or sanct i ons under Rul e 9011?
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We r evi ew al l aspect s of a bankrupt cy cour t s deci si on t o
i mpose Rul e 9011 sanct i ons f or abuse of di scr et i on. Val l eyNat l Bank v. Needl er ( I n r e Gr ant ham Br os. ) , 922 F. 2d 1438,
1441 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) . A bankrupt cy cour t abuses i t s di scr et i on
when i t appl i es t he i ncor r ect l egal r ul e or i t s appl i cat i on of
t he cor r ect l egal r ul e i s (1) i l l ogi cal , ( 2) i mpl ausi bl e, or
( 3) wi t hout suppor t i n i nf er ences t hat may be dr awn f r om t he
f act s i n t he r ecor d. Uni t ed St at es v. Loew, 593 F. 3d 1136,
1139 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hi nkson, 585 F. 3d
1247, 126162 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) ( en banc) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) .
V. DISCUSSION
Rul e 9011 st at es i n r el evant par t :
( b) Repr esent at i on t o t he cour t
By pr esent i ng t o t he cour t . . . a pet i t i on, pl eadi ng,wr i t t en mot i on, or ot her paper , an at t or ney orunr epr esent ed par t y i s cer t i f yi ng t hat t o t he best oft he per son s knowl edge, i nf or mat i on, and bel i ef ,f or med af t er an i nqui r y reasonabl e under t heci r cumst ances, - -
( 1) i t i s not bei ng pr esent ed f or any i mpr operpur pose, such as t o harass or t o cause unnecessarydel ay or needl ess i ncrease i n t he cost of l i t i gat i on;
( 2) t he cl ai ms, def enses, and ot her l egal cont ent i onst her ei n ar e war r ant ed by exi st i ng l aw or by a
nonf r i vol ous ar gument f or t he extensi on, modi f i cat i on,or r ever sal of exi st i ng l aw or t he est abl i shment ofnew l aw;
( 3) t he f act ual cont ent i ons have evi dent i ar y suppor tor , i f speci f i cal l y so i dent i f i ed, wi l l l i kel y haveevi dent i ar y suppor t af t er a reasonabl e oppor t uni t y f orf ur t her i nvesti gat i on or di scover y; . . . .
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
12/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12-
The l anguage of Rul e 9011 par al l el s t hat of [ Ci vi l
Rul e] 11. Ther ef or e, cour t s anal yzi ng sanct i ons under Rul e 9011
may appr opr i at el y rel y on cases i nt er pr et i ng [ Ci vi l Rul e] 11.
Wi nt er t on v. Humi t ech of N. Cal . , LLC ( I n r e Bl ue Pi ne, I nc. ) ,457 B. R. 64, 75 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2011) ( ci t i ng Mar sch v. Mar sch
( I n r e Mar sch) , 36 F. 3d 825, 829 ( 9t h Ci r . 1994) ) .
A. Standards for Imposition of Sanctions Under Rule 9011
Under t he Rul e, a f i l i ng i s f r i vol ous i f i t i s bot h
basel ess l acks f act ual f oundat i on and made wi t hout a
r easonabl e and compet ent i nqui r y. I n r e Bl ue Pi ne, I nc. ,
457 B. R. at 75 ( ci t i ng Townsend v. Hol man Consul t i ng Corp. ,
929 F. 2d 1358, 1362 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) ( en banc) ) . The at t or ney
has a dut y t o conduct a r easonabl e f act ual i nvest i gat i on as
wel l as t o per f or m adequat e l egal r esear ch t hat conf i r ms t hat
hi s posi t i on i s war r ant ed by exi st i ng l aw ( or by a good f ai t h
ar gument f or a modi f i cat i on or ext ensi on of exi st i ng l aw) . I d.
( ci t i ng Chr i st i an v. Mat t el , I nc. , 286 F. 3d 1118, 1127 ( 9t h Ci r .2002) ) . Thus, a f i ndi ng t hat t her e was no r easonabl e i nqui r y
i nt o ei t her t he f act s or t he l aw i s t ant amount t o a f i ndi ng of
f r i vol ous. I d. ( ci t i ng Townsend, 929 F. 2d at 1362) .
To det er mi ne whet her Hai nes vi ol at ed Rul e 9011, t he
bankr upt cy cour t must have j udged Hai nes conduct under an
obj ect i ve st andar d of r easonabl eness. G. C. & K. B. I nvs. , I nc.
v. Wi l son, 326 F. 3d 1096, 1109 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Townsend,
929 F. 2d at 1362) ) . The r easonabl eness of at t or ney conduct i s
measur ed agai nst t he conduct of a competent at t orney admi t t ed
t o pr act i ce bef or e t he i nvol ved cour t . I n r e Gr ant ham Br os. ,
922 F. 2d at 1441.
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
13/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 At t he sanct i ons hear i ng, NCM agai n compl ai ned t hat t hesol e basi s f or Hai nes obj ect i on was t hat debt or s di sput ed t hecl ai m i n t hei r schedul es. The cour t appear ed t o agr ee wi t h t hat
asser t i on.7 Al t hough Hai nes di scussi on i n i t s cl ai m obj ect i on on t hi s
poi nt was cur sor y, t her e ar e speci f i c st at ut es i n Nevada thataddr ess act i ons br ought t o col l ect a cr edi t car d debt owed t o apur chaser of cr edi t car d debt . See Nev. Rev. St at . 97A. 160,97A. 165. The bankr upt cy cour t di d not addr ess Hai nes argumentunder 502( b) ( 1) because i t over r ul ed Hai nes cl ai m obj ect i on onother gr ounds.
- 13-
B. The Claim Objection In this Case Was Not Frivolous
Hai nes obj ect ed t o NCM s POC on not one, but several
grounds. 6 Hai nes chal l enged NCM s POC because i t l acked
document ary pr oof under Rul e 3001( c) ( 1) and t hus cont ended t hatt he POC was not ent i t l ed t o pr i ma f aci e val i di t y. Hai nes al so
asser t ed as a def ense under 502( b) ( 1) t hat NCM f ai l ed t o
pr ovi de evi dence of an enf or ceabl e cont r act t hat woul d ent i t l e
i t t o make t he cl ai m agai nst debt or under Nevada l aw. 7 Fi nal l y,
t he cl ai m obj ect i on i ncl uded a st at ement t hat debt or s di sput ed
t he obj ect ed t o cl ai m on t he Fi l ed Bankrupt cy Schedul es. For
al l t hese reasons, Hai nes r equest ed t he di sal l owance of NCM s
POC.
A f ai r r eadi ng of Hai nes cl ai m obj ect i on shows t hat i t s
argument r egardi ng t he l ack of document at i on was di r ected
t owards t he pr i ma f aci e val i di t y of NCM s POC and t he bur den of
pr oof i n t he cl ai ms obj ect i on pr ocess. Speci f i cal l y, Hai nes
quest i oned NCM s st andi ng t o f i l e t he cl ai m and mai nt ai ned,because of t hat def i ci ency, debt or s had no evi dent i ar y bur den t o
over come i n obj ect i ng t o NCM s POC.
Hai nes ci t at i on t o I n r e Tr an, 369 B. R. 312 ( S. D. Tex.
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
14/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 I n a di f f er ent cont ext , we have hel d t hat st andi ng i spr er equi si t e t o t he evi dent i ar y benef i t s set f or t h i nRul e 3001( f ) . Veal v. Am. Home Mor t g. Ser vi ci ng, I nc.
( I n r e Veal ) , 450 B. R. 897 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2011) . Ther e, t he Panelr easoned t hat Rul e 3001( f ) st at es t hat a pr oof of cl ai m i s pr i maf aci e evi dence of t he val i di t y and amount of t he cl ai m i f i t i sbot h execut ed and f i l ed i n accordance wi t h t he Rul e, and Rul e3001( b) r equi r es t hat a cl ai m be execut ed by t he cr edi t or or i t saut hor i zed agent . . . . i f a cl ai m i s chal l enged on t he basi s ofst andi ng, t he par t y who f i l ed t he pr oof of cl ai m must show t hati t i s ei t her t he credi t or or t he credi t or s aut hor i zed agent i n
( cont i nued. . . )
- 14-
2007) suppor t ed i t s ar gument s. I n Tr an, t he debt or obj ect ed t o
eCast Set t l ement Corp. s POCs because eCast , who was an assi gnee
of t hr ee banks whi ch al l egedl y i ssued cr edi t car ds t o Tr an, was
a s t r anger and t heref ore she owed t hem no money. ECastr esponded by pr ovi di ng addi t i on evi dence consi st i ng pr i mar i l y of
gener al assi gnment agr eement s between eCast and t he t hree banks,
but t hose assi gnment s di d not speci f i cal l y i dent i f y Tr an or her
r espect i ve account s. At an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, eCast was
assi gned t he bur den t o overcome Tran s obj ect i ons. ECast
at t empt ed t o i nt r oduce evi dence suppor t i ng i t s POCs, but t he
assi gnment s were excl uded as hear say. I n t he end, t he
bankrupt cy cour t f ound t hat eCast f ai l ed t o f i l e a pr oper POC
based upon a wr i t i ng and t hus i t s POCs wer e not ent i t l ed t o
pr i ma f aci e val i di t y. Ther ef or e, t he cour t f ound t hat under
Fi f t h Ci r cui t l aw, Tr an had no evi dent i ar y bur den t o over come i n
obj ect i ng t o eCast s cl ai ms. The bankrupt cy cour t al so f ound
t hat eCast f ai l ed t o sat i sf y i t s evi dent i ar y bur den of pr ovi di ngt he val i di t y and amount s of i t s cl ai ms under a cont r act ual
anal ysi s under Texas l aw and t hus di sal l owed i t s POCs. On
appeal , t he di st r i ct cour t af f i r med. 8
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
15/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8( . . . cont i nued)or der t o obt ai n t he benef i t s of Rul e 3001( f ) . I d. at 922.
9 See al so I n r e Samson, 392 B. R. 724, 733 ( Bankr . N. D. Ohi o2008) ( Ther e i s . . . no br i ght - l i ne t est t o det er mi ne t hesuf f i ci ency of t he wr i t t en mat er i al s submi t t ed by t he cr edi t or
f or pur poses of Bankrupt cy Rul e 3001. ) ; I n r e Heat h, 331 B. R. at432 ( There i s no uni f or m st andar d f or what must be cont ai ned i na summar y. ) ( per t ai ni ng t o cr edi t car d debt ) .
10 Af t er t he bankr upt cy cour t hear d and r ul ed on Hai nesobj ect i on t o NCM s POC, f ur t her amendment s t o Rul e 3001 tookef f ect on December 1, 2012. Those amendment s, whi ch do not appl yt o t hi s case, wer e i nt ended t o st andar di ze t he pr oof s of cl ai mand support i ng document at i on f i l ed by assi gnees.
- 15-
The ot her cases ci t ed by Hai nes al so l egal l y suppor t ed i t s
posi t i on. I n r e Rochest er , 2005 WL 3670877 ( Bankr . N. D. Tex.
2006) ( hol di ng t hat f or a cl ai m based upon a wr i t i ng, t he
under l yi ng document s and t he ass i gnment or t r ansf er document areneeded t o compl y wi t h Rul e 3001( c) ) ; I n r e Kendal l , 380 B. R. 37
( Bankr . N. D. Okl a. 2007) ( same) . Thus, obj ect i vel y, Hai nes
cl ai m obj ect i on was war r ant ed by exi st i ng l aw and t hus coul d not
have vi ol at ed 9011( b) ( 2) . 9
NCM conceded t hat i t had at t ached no document at i on t o i t s
POC, 10 but ar gued t hat i t s POC st i l l pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a
of t he cl ai m s val i di t y and amount i n l i ght of debt or s
admi ss i ons on t hei r schedul es. Thus, accor di ng t o NCM, t her e
was enough i nf ormat i on i n t he POC t o shi f t t he bur den of
pr oduct i on t o debt or s. See I n r e Mi nbat i wal l a, 424 B. R. at 113
( ci t i ng I n r e J or czak, 314 B. R. 474, 483 n. 11 ( Bankr . D. Conn.
2004) ( [ W] hen a pr oof of cl ai m [ agai nst an est at e sur pl us]
has been f i l ed i n a chapt er 7 case and t he chapt er 7 debt orobj ect s t o t he same but schedul ed t he r el evant cl ai m as
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
16/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 16-
undi sput ed, t he bur den i s on t he debt or t o of f er some adequate
l evel of expl anat i on as t o why hi s schedul i ng of t hat cl ai m as
undi sput ed was i ncor r ect . ) ( credi t car d cl ai m) ) . NCM f ur t her
ar gued at t he cl ai ms obj ect i on hear i ng t hat Hai nes st at ement i nt he obj ect i on t hat debt or s di sput ed t he obj ect ed t o cl ai m on
t he Fi l ed Bankrupt cy Schedul es was f al se.
The bankrupt cy cour t agr eed, essent i al l y adopt i ng NCM s
argument t hat debt ors had admi t t ed i n t hei r Schedul e F owi ng t he
debt set f or t h i n NCM s POC. Ther ef or e, i t f ol l owed t hat t he
obj ect ed- t o cl ai m coul d not have been di sput ed i n t hose same
schedul es and t hus t he st at ement i n t he cl ai m obj ect i on was
f al se. I t i s t r ue, of cour se, t hat Hai nes st at ement was
i ndeed i ncor r ect because NCM was nowhere t o be f ound on debt ors
schedul es. Thi s i s not sur pr i si ng i n l i ght of Hai nes obj ect i on
t o NCM s cl ai m based on i t s l ack of st andi ng.
However , when Hai nes st atement about t he di sput ed debt
i s consi der ed i n r el at i on t o t he cl ai m obj ect i on as a whol e, seeTownsend, 929 F. 2d at 1364, we do not bel i eve t hat t hi s si ngl e
st at ement was so si gni f i cant as t o cause Hai nes t o be l i abl e f or
sanct i ons f or vi ol at i ng Rul e 9011( b) ( 3) . Ther e ar e no har d and
f ast r ul es f or descr i bi ng t he r ol e of t he debt or s schedul es t o
f i l l i n gaps i n a POC t hat ot her wi se l acks pr i ma f aci e
evi dent i ar y st at us under Rul e 3001( f ) . See I n r e Mi nbat i wal l a,
424 B. R. at 116- 17 ( di scussi ng t he var i ous appr oaches t o t he
r ol e of t he debt or s schedul es i n cl ai m obj ect i on pr oceedi ngs) .
Fur t her , because debt ors can amend t he schedul es at any t i me
bef or e t he case i s cl osed, a change i n t he l i st i ng f r om
undi sput ed t o di sput ed has no ef f ect on t he bur den associ at ed
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
17/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17-
wi t h t he cl ai m and t he cour t s wi l l not r el y on such admi ssi ons.
Heat h, 331 B. R. at 431. See al so I n r e Veal , 450 B. R. at 921
( admi ssi ons i n debt or s bankrupt cy schedul es not concl usi ve
evi dence on i ssue of cl ai mant s st andi ng) ; B- Real , LLC v.Mel i l l o ( I n r e Mel i l l o) , 392 B. R. 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . BAP 2008)
( i nf or mat i on i n t he debt or s bankrupt cy schedul es t hat t ended t o
est abl i sh t he exi st ence of t he under l yi ng debt pr ovi de[ d] an
i nadequat e showi ng of t he Appel l ant s owner shi p as a
t r ansf er r ee. ) .
C. Persistent Pattern of Meritless Claims Objections
Our i nqui r y i nt o t he appr opr i at eness of t he sanct i ons does
not end here because t he Rul e 9011( b) ( 1) i mpr oper pur pose
i nqui r y r emai ns. Even i f t he cl ai m obj ect i on i n t hi s case i s
not consi der ed f r i vol ous, i f a cour t f i nds t hat a mot i on or
paper , . . . , i s f i l ed i n t he cont ext of a per si st ent pat t er n
of cl ear l y abusi ve l i t i gat i on acti vi t y, i t wi l l be deemed t o
have been f i l ed f or an i mpr oper pur pose and sanct i onabl e. Aet na Li f e I ns. Co. v. Al l a Med. Ser vs. , I nc. , 855 F. 2d 1470,
1476 ( 9t h Ci r . 1988) . On t hi s r ecor d, we cannot t el l whet her
Hai nes conduct r i ses t o t he l evel of abusi ve l i t i gat i on
act i vi t y t hat Rul e 9011 was meant t o pr ot ect agai nst namel y
conduct t hat har asses, causes unnecessar y del ay, or needl essl y
i ncreases t he cost of l i t i gat i on. See Rul e 9011( b) ( 1) .
Because t he sanct i on mot i on was a cont est ed mat t er subj ect
t o Rul e 9014, t he bankr upt cy cour t was r equi r ed t o make f i ndi ngs
of f act , ei t her or al l y on t he r ecor d, or i n a wr i t t en deci si on.
See Rul e 9014( c) ( i ncor por at i ng Rul e 7052, whi ch i n t ur n
i ncor por at es Ci vi l Rul e 52) . These f i ndi ngs must be suf f i ci ent
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
18/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18-
t o enabl e a r evi ewi ng cour t t o det er mi ne t he f act ual basi s f or
t he cour t s r ul i ng. I n r e Veal , 450 B. R. at 919.
Al t hough t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t he bankrupt cy cour t was
concer ned wi t h Hai nes conduct i n ot her bankrupt cy cases, t hecour t never made speci f i c f act ual f i ndi ngs wi t h r espect t o t he
cl ai m obj ect i ons whi ch wer e par t of Hai nes per si st ent pat t er n
of f i l i ng mer i t l ess cl ai m obj ect i ons as stat ed i n i t s or der .
The t r anscr i pt of t he sanct i ons hear i ng shows t he f ol l owi ng
di scussi on:
THE COURT: . . . I t appear s t o me you ve t r i ed t o si dest ep
t he Cour t s obj ect i on by movi ng back a st ep and l i st i ng cl ai mswi t h an unf ounded di sput e. . . . That s how i t appear s t o me.
MR. ALDOUS: Okay. I s t her e a speci f i c case you r e. . . . r ef er r i ng to?
THE COURT: We l l di scuss t hat l at er .
MR. ALDOUS: Okay.
THE COURT: I m havi ng a meet i ng wi t h t he ot her j udges t hi saf t er noon t o see i f we can addr ess t hi s gl obal l y.
MR. ALDOUS: Okay.Whi l e a bankrupt cy cour t s di scr et i on i n i mposi ng sanct i ons
under Rul e 9011 i s subst ant i al , di scussi on of i t s anal ysi s i s
cr uci al bot h t o i nsur e t hat i t s di scr et i on has not been abused
and t o pr oper l y i nf or m t he i nvol ved par t i es of t he pr eci se basi s
upon whi ch any sanct i ons have been i mposed. I f each of t he
cl ai ms obj ect i ons was mer i t l ess as st at ed i n t he cour t s
or der , t he bankrupt cy cour t shoul d have di scussed each obj ect i on
and t ol d Hai nes why i t was wi t hout mer i t . I nst ead, t he
bankr upt cy cour t si mpl y sai d: We l l di scuss t hat l at er .
Accor di ngl y, nei t her Hai nes nor t hi s cour t can di scer n t he
pr eci se basi s upon whi ch t he sanct i ons were i mposed. [ W] hen
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
19/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19-
t he r ecor d does not cont ai n a cl ear basi s f or t he cour t s
r ul i ng, we must vacat e t he cour t s order and r emand f or f ur t her
pr oceedi ngs. I n r e Veal , 450 B. R. at 920.
D. Safe Harbor
Gener al l y, as an i ni t i al i nqui r y, t he bankrupt cy cour t must
determi ne whether t he part y seeki ng sanct i ons compl i ed wi t h t he
so- cal l ed saf e har bor pr ovi si on. Rul e 9011( c) ( 1) ( A) set s f or t h
t he r equi r ement s f or how a mot i on f or sanct i ons i s i ni t i at ed.
The Rul e r equi r es t hat a mot i on must be ser ved, but not f i l ed or
be pr esent ed t o t he cour t i f t he chal l enged paper , cl ai m,
def ense, cont ent i on, or deni al i s wi t hdr awn or appr opr i at el y
cor r ect ed wi t hi n 21 days af t er ser vi ce or wi t hi n anot her t i me
t he cour t set s. The saf e harbor r equi r ement s have been
descr i bed as f ol l ows: The movant serves t he al l egedl y
of f endi ng par t y wi t h a f i l i ng- r eady mot i on as not i ce t hat i t
pl ans to seek sanct i ons. Af t er 21 days, i f t he of f endi ng par t y
has not wi t hdr awn t he f i l i ng, t he movant may f i l e t he Rul e 11mot i on wi t h t he cour t . Truesdel l v. S. Cal . Per manent e Med.
Gr p. , 293 F. 3d 1146, 1151 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) .
The bankrupt cy cour t made no expr ess f i ndi ng t hat t he saf e
harbor r equi r ement under Rul e 9011( c) ( 1) ( A) was met and t he
r ecor d on t hi s poi nt i s spar se. NCM made a vague r ef er ence at
t he sanct i ons hear i ng t hat i t sent Hai nes t wo l et t er s
accompani ed by a proposed mot i on but none of t hose document s
wer e i n t he r ecor d on appeal . As a r esul t , t her e i s no
i ndi cat i on t hat t he l et t er s/ mot i on wer e t i mel y ser ved.
Hai nes r ai sed t he i ssue of t he saf e har bor i n t he
bankrupt cy cour t , but does not speci f i cal l y pur sue the i ssue on
-
7/25/2019 In re: Jowell A. Hernandez and Anna Lee G. Hernandez, 9th Cir. BAP (2013)
20/20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 20-
appeal . Al t hough we general l y do not consi der a mat t er on
appeal t hat i s not speci f i cal l y and di st i nct l y ar gued i n
appel l ant s openi ng br i ef , Af f or dabl e Housi ng Dev. Cor p. v.
Fr esno, 433 F. 3d 1182, 1193 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) , we consi der t hei ssue her e because t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has st at ed t hat t he saf e
har bor r equi r ement i s not onl y st r i ct l y enf or ced, but i s
mandat or y. Hol gat e v. Bal dwi n, 425 F. 3d 671, 677 ( 9t h Ci r .
2005) ; Bar ber v. Mi l l er , 146 F. 3d 707 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) . Fur t her ,
i nf or mal l et t er s or war ni ngs do not meet t he saf e har bor
r equi r ement s. Bar ber , 146 F. 3d at 71011. I t i s t he ser vi ce
of t he mot i on t hat gi ves not i ce t o a par t y and i t s at t or neys
t hat t hey must r et r act or r i sk sanct i ons. Radcl i f f e v. Rai nbow
Const r . Co. , 254 F. 3d 772, 789 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) . I t does not
appear t hat t he bankrupt cy cour t f ol l owed t hi s pr ecedent .
VI. CONCLUSION
For t he reasons s t ated, we VACATE t he sanct i ons or der and
REMAND t o t he bankr upt cy cour t t o al l ow i t t o make speci f i cf act ual f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons of l aw as t o why sanct i ons
under Rul e 9011 were warr ant ed based on Hai nes persi st ent
pat t er n of f i l i ng mer i t l ess cl ai m obj ecti ons and t o al so
ar t i cul at e f i ndi ngs whi ch suppor t a concl usi on t hat t he movi ng
par t y compl i ed wi t h t he saf e har bor r equi r ement s.