DENNIS VAZQUEZ V., No. 14-60003 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 4 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, No. 14-60003 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 13-1014 DENNIS ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. AAA BLUEPRINT & DIGITAL REPROGRAPHICS, a California Corporation, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kurtz, Ballinger, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Dennis Adrian Vazquez appeals pro se from the judgment * 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). of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment excepting from discharge Vazquez’s debt to AAA Blueprint & Digital Reprographics. 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. The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because the 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)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 14-60003

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.