Van Zandt v. Cantil-Sakauye et al

Filing 10

ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/10/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

Nos. C 14-0561 CW
14-2085 CW

5
6
7
8
9

In re:

Bk. Nos. 12-32655-HLB
12-03184-HLB

Robert Franklin Van Zandt,
Debtor.

ORDER AFFIRMING
BANKRUPTCY COURT

________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Debtor Robert Franklin Van Zandt has filed at least thirteen

12

separate appeals challenging orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

13

Court previously dismissed seven of those appeals, which were

14

appeals from interlocutory orders.

15

1888; 13-5947; 13-5948; 13-0797; 14-1527; and 14-1528.

16

also affirmed the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court and denied the

17

motion to withdraw the reference in four other cases.

18

Nos. 13-0702; 13-1568; 13-2765; and 13-4200.

19

affirms two additional Bankruptcy Court orders.

20
21

The

See Case Nos. 13-1513; 13The Court

See Case

The Court now

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court has jurisdiction over these appeals under

22

28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

23

reviewed de novo and its findings of fact under the clearly

24

erroneous standard.

25

533, 536 (9th Cir. 1988).

26

The bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are

Fed. R. Bankr. 8013; In re Wegner, 839 F.2d

BACKGROUND

27

Much of the relevant procedural and factual history of

28

Debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings and the related state court

1

proceedings are detailed in the Court’s previous orders,

2

particularly the Court’s January 27, 2014 order affirming

3

decisions of the Bankruptcy Court and denying the motion to

4

withdraw the reference filed in case numbers 13-0702, 13-1568, 13-

5

2765 and 13-4200.

6

At issue in these appeals is an adversary proceeding

7

initiated by Debtor against the Chief Justice of the California

8

Supreme Court, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the Presiding Judge of the San

9

Francisco Superior Court, Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee, and “Jennifer,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Court Clerk of the Probate Division of the superior Court of

11

California” (the Judicial Defendants) and William Parisi, a

12

creditor in Debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding.

13

Debtor alleged that the “California Vexatious Litigant Statutes

14

have been misapplied against debtor as a successful defendant in

15

an appellate case that he won,” resulting in a “false” prefiling

16

order.

17

in original).

18

was entered by the California Court of Appeal before Debtor filed

19

his voluntary bankruptcy petition.

20

in the adversary action was an injunction preventing the

21

enforcement of the prefiling order and requiring the dismissal of

22

the pending state court action and other adversary proceedings

23

brought against him in the Bankruptcy Court.

24

Bankruptcy Court’s order granting Judicial Defendants’ motion to

25

dismiss the adversary proceeding with prejudice and the Bankruptcy

26

Court’s order granting Parisi’s motion for sanctions.

In the complaint,

Bankruptcy Court Case No 12-3241, Docket No. 1 (emphasis
The prefiling order referred to in the complaint

27
28
2

The only remedy Debtor sought

Debtor appeals the

DISCUSSION

1
2

I.

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Debtor first appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting

3
4

Judicial Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Debtor argues that the

5

Bankruptcy Court erred when it found that he failed to state any

6

legal theory under which relief could be granted.

7

the Bankruptcy Court stated that “the Court can think of no legal

8

theory which would entitle it to vacate a pre-petition state court

9

pre-filing order, or to order the dismissal of separate and

Specifically,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

distinct legal proceedings.”

NDCA Bankrupcty Court Case No. 13-

11

3241, Docket No. 33 at ¶ 17.

Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court noted

12

that “there are several legal theories, such as the Rooker-Feldman

13

doctrine cited by Defendants, which expressly prohibit the very

14

relief requested.”

15

his opposition to the motion to dismiss in the Bankruptcy Court,

16

or his brief on appeal provides authority for the Bankruptcy Court

17

to vacate a pre-petition state court pre-filing order.

18

Debtor’s substantive challenge to the pre-filing order appears to

19

have no basis in law.

20

is affirmed.

21

II.

22

Id.

Nothing Debtor cites in his complaint,

Moreover,

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s order

Sanctions Order
Debtor next appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting

23

Parisi’s motion for sanctions.

Debtor argues that the order

24

imposing sanctions is void because Parisi filed the motion after

25

Debtor filed his notice of appeal with respect to the order

26

granting the motion to dismiss.

27

notice of appeal generally has the effect of transferring

28

jurisdiction from the bankruptcy court to the district court with

While the filing of a timely

3

1

respect to any matters involved in the appeal, Trulis v. Barton,

2

107 F.3d 685, 694-95 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted),

3

the filing of an appeal does not divest the lower court of

4

authority to impose sanctions after the filing of a notice of

5

appeal from a decision on the merits.

6

10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999).

7

Bankruptcy Court’s order.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Accordingly, the Court affirms the

CONCLUSION

8
9

In re Mirzai, 236 B.R. 8,

For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy
Court’s orders.

The Clerk of the Court shall close the cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated:

October 10, 2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4