In Re: SK Foods, L.P.

Filing 15

ORDER RE: BANKRUPTCY APPEAL signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/11/2018 ORDERING that the order of the Bankruptcy Court finding appellant Larry J. Lichtenegger in contempt be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

LARRY J. LICHTENEGGER,

13

Appellant,

14
15
16
17
18
19

CIV. NO. 2:18-390 WBS
Bankruptcy Case No.
09−29162 − D − 11

v.

Adversary Proceeding No.
09−02543 − D

BANK OF MONTREAL, as
Administrative Agent, successor
by Assignment to Debtors SK
Foods, L.P. and RHM Industrial
Specialty Foods, Inc., a
California corporation, d/b/a
Colusa County Canning Co.,

ORDER RE: BANKRUPTCY APPEAL

Appellee.

20
----oo0oo----

21
22

Appellant Larry J. Lichtenegger, an attorney, brought

23

this appeal of a judgment issued by the United States Bankruptcy

24

Court for the Eastern District of California finding appellant in

25

contempt for violation of a temporary restraining order.

26

(Appellant’s Opening Brief, Docket No. 8.)

27
28

The court reviews the decision to impose contempt for
an abuse of discretion.

FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d
1

1

1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999).

2

follows a two-prong test.

3

whether the bankruptcy court identified the correct legal rule

4

for application.

5

62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

6

identify the correct rule, the court reviews whether the

7

application of the legal rule was clearly erroneous, and will

8

affirm unless its findings were illogical, implausible, or

9

without support in the record.

10

An evaluation of abuse of discretion
First, the court determines de novo

United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261If the Bankruptcy Court did

Id. at 1262.

For the reasons set forth in the Bankruptcy Judge’s

11

written memorandum decision filed February 6, 2018 (In re SK

12

Foods, L.P., No. 09-29162-D-11, 2018 WL 784451 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.

13

Feb. 6, 2018)), appellant was properly found in contempt for

14

violation of a temporary restraining order.

15

Bankruptcy Court correctly identified the pertinent legal

16

standard: “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear

17

and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific

18

and definite order of the court.

19

contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.”

20

at *1 (quoting Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239)(internal

21

quotation marks omitted).

22

First, the

The burden then shifts to the

Second, the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings were

23

not illogical or implausible and had support in the record.

24

Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1261.

25

application of those findings of facts to the correct legal

26

standard was not clearly erroneous.

27
28

Id.

Further, the Bankruptcy Court’s

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order of the
Bankruptcy Court finding appellant Larry J. Lichtenegger in
2

See

1

contempt be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

2
3

Dated:

September 11, 2018

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3