THOMAS PEREZ V. RICHARD SCHOENFELD., No. 13-55301 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-55301 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00618-SJOAGR v. MEMORANDUM* TOMCO AUTO PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation; et al., Defendants, And RICHARD ALAN SCHOENFELD, an individual, Defendant - Appellant. In the Matter of: RICHARD ALAN SCHOENFELD, No. 13-55308 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02220-SJO Debtor, THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD ALAN SCHOENFELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 11, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Richard Schoenfeld appeals the district court’s holding on summary judgment that his debts were nondischargeable because his actions constituted defalcation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review summary judgment orders de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). Although the district court applied the correct law at the time, during the pendency of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., 133 S. Ct. 1754 (2013). Bullock clarified the requisite intent for defalcation under § 523(a)(4) and effectively abrogated Ninth Circuit law, which formerly did not require a particular state of mind. Because the district 2 13-55301 court did not have an opportunity to assess defalcation under Bullock, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for reconsideration in the first instance. At this time, we need not reach any of the other issues Schoenfeld raised on appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. 3 13-55301

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.