No. 93-17283, 59 F.3d 175 (9th Cir. 1995)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Heritage Hotel's lender liability claims against Valley Bank are barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion¹  if: (1) Heritage Hotel could have raised the claims in a prior proceeding in which (2) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered a final judgement on the merits, (3) involving the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action. International Union v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1993).

Heritage Hotel raises one principle argument on appeal.²  It argues that the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the reorganization plan was not a final judgment. This argument fails because the bankruptcy code provides that a debtor is bound by a confirmed plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a); see also Lomas Mortgage v. Wiese, 980 F.2d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan is res judicata). Further, Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b) (1), Form No. 6, Schedule B-2 requires debtors to disclose contingent and unliquidated claims "of every nature, including counterclaims of the debtor."

Heritage Hotel's arguments are not persuasive. It cites D-1 Enterprises, Inc. v. Commercial State Bank, 864 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1989) for the argument that a decision modifying the automatic stay of a creditor's actions is not a final judgment. D-1 Enterprises is not applicable, however, because confirmation of the reorganization plan, not the modification of the automatic stay, triggered claim preclusion. Matter of Baudoin, 981 F.2d at 742 n.13. Heritage Hotel also contends that the Confirmation Order could not be a final judgment because it did not include "the amount of money which was owed by [Heritage Hotel] to the Bank." This statement is inaccurate. The Confirmation Order states that " [Heritage Hotel] shall pay to Valley Bank the full amount of the indebtedness on or before 60 days following July 6, 1992."

AFFIRMED.