DANNY PRYOR V. ITEC FINANCIAL, INC., No. 11-60066 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 23 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: DANNY WAYNE PRYOR, Debtor, No. 11-60066 BAP No. 10-1258 DANNY WAYNE PRYOR, MEMORANDUM * Appellant, v. ITEC FINANCIAL, INC., Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Kirscher, and Sargis, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2013 ** Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Danny Wayne Pryor appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel s ( BAP ) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court s decision that Pryor s debt to ITEC Financial, Inc. was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). 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 did not abuse its discretion in striking Pryor s answer and directing entry of default based on Pryor s willful failure to attend a status conference, cooperate in the discovery process, and timely respond to the court s order to show cause. See Halaco Eng g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 379 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that this court will not reverse sanctions absent a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment ); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth five factors for court to weigh in determining whether severe sanction is appropriate). The bankruptcy court did not err in granting default judgment to ITEC for an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the court had ample evidence of Pryor s false representations, supporting nondischargeability of 2 11-60066 Pryor s debt to ITEC. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (excepting from discharge debt obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud); Ghomeshi v. Sabban (In re Sabban), 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements under § 523(a)(2)(A)). We decline to address contentions that Pryor did not properly raise below, including his contentions concerning California s usury law and damages. See Fla. Partners Corp. v. Southeast Co. (In re Southeast Co.), 868 F.2d 335, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1989) (declining to address issue not raised before bankruptcy court). We deny as unnecessary Pryor s motion, filed on October 21, 2011, to supplement the record on appeal. AFFIRMED. 3 11-60066
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.
