E. BORS, III V., No. 13-60018 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: E. DANIEL BORS, III, No. 13-60018 Debtor, ______________________________ BAP No. 12-1214 SIMONA TANASESCU, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. E. DANIEL BORS, III, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kirscher and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. * 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). Appellant Simona Tanasescu appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Tanasescu’s adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the BAP. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Slyman (In re Slyman), 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Tanasescu’s adversary proceeding for failure to state a claim for relief under 11 U.S.C. 727(d)(1) because Tanasescu failed to allege facts sufficient to show that, but for Bors’ alleged fraud in his bankruptcy filings, Bors’ would have been denied his discharge. See Jones v. U.S. Tr., Eugene, 736 F.3d 897, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2013) (to revoke a debtor’s discharge based upon false oaths in connection with his petition for discharge, the fraud must be material, or, sufficient to cause denial of the discharge if known at the time of discharge). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tanasescu leave to amend to state a claim of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523 where the court dismissed the adversary proceeding without prejudice to Tanasescu filing such a claim. 2 13-60018 We reject as without merit Tanasescu’s contentions that the bankruptcy court and the BAP were biased or unfairly prejudiced her, or that she qualified for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). AFFIRMED. 3 13-60018
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
