IN RE: RONALD MAZZAFERRO

Filing 11

ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/26/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

In re:
Robert Franklin Van Zandt,
Debtor.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

________________________________/
RONALD MAZZAFERRO,

11
12

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

Bk. Nos. 12-32655-HLB
12-03240-HLB

13
14

WILLIAM PARISI, et al.,

15

Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________/

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

Nos. C 14-0562 CW
14-2084 CW
14-3711 CW

ORDER AFFIRMING
BANKRUPTCY COURT

Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Mazzaferro has filed three appeals
related to an adversary proceeding he initiated in the above
captioned Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.

Having considered the

papers filed by the parties, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy
Court’s orders.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court has jurisdiction over these appeals under
28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

The bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo and its findings of fact under the clearly
erroneous standard.

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

533, 536 (9th Cir. 1988).

BACKGROUND

1

On September 17, 2012, Debtor Robert Franklin Van Zandt filed

2
3

a voluntary Chapter 7 Petition.

Bankruptcy Docket No. 1.

On

4

November 4, 2013, Plaintiff-Appellant Mazzaferro initiated the

5

adversary proceeding at issue in these appeals, naming William

6

Parisi, Edith Mazzaferri, Russell Stanaland, Lynn Searle, William

7

Shea and Mansuetto Lenci as Defendants.

8

asserted six causes of action: (1) bankruptcy fraud, (2) breach of

9

trust, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) breach of contract,

In his complaint, he

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(5) malicious criminal prosecution, and (6) violation of the rules

11

of professional conduct.

12

that he is a creditor of the bankruptcy estate.

Plaintiff-Appellant has not asserted

13

On January 17, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court granted Defendants-

14

Appellees’ motions to dismiss and, on January 31, 2014, Plaintiff-

15

Appellant filed a notice of appeal regarding that order.

16

18, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court granted Defendant William Parisi’s

17

motion for sanctions and, on May 2, 2014, Plaintiff-Appellant

18

filed a notice of appeal regarding the sanctions order.

19

on August 1, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a pre-filing order

20

requiring Plaintiff-Appellant to seek leave of court prior to

21

filing any future pro se filings in the Bankruptcy Court.

22

August 13, 2014, Plaintiff-Appellant filed a notice of appeal

23

regarding the pre-filing order.

26

Finally,

On

DISCUSSION

24
25

On April

I.

Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding
Plaintiff-Appellant first appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s

27

order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss.

28

opening brief, he appears to argue that because this Court now has
2

In his

1

jurisdiction over his case, he is entitled to proceed as though

2

his case was not dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court.

3

Appellant does not identify any error in the Bankruptcy Court’s

4

decision.

5

ruling, which it adopted after hearing, the Court finds that the

6

Bankruptcy Court correctly dismissed Plaintiff-Appellant’s claims.

7

Accordingly, the Court affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s January 17,

8

2014 order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss.

9

II.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff-

Having reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s tentative

Sanctions Order
Plaintiff-Appellant next appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s order

11

granting Defendant Parisi’s motion for sanctions.

12

Appellant argues that the order imposing sanctions is void because

13

Parisi filed the motion after Plaintiff-Appellant filed his notice

14

of appeal with respect to the order granting the motion to

15

dismiss.

16

has the effect of transferring jurisdiction from the bankruptcy

17

court to the district court with respect to any matters involved

18

in the appeal, Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 694-95 (9th Cir.

19

1995) (internal citations omitted), the filing of an appeal does

20

not divest the lower court of authority to impose sanctions after

21

the filing of a notice of appeal.

22

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

23

Bankruptcy Court’s April 18, 2014 order granting Defendant

24

Parisi’s motion for sanctions.

25

III. Pre-Filing Order

26

Plaintiff-

While the filing of a timely notice of appeal generally

In re Mirzai, 236 B.R. 8, 10

Accordingly, the Court affirms the

Finally, Plaintiff-Appellant appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s

27

August 1, 2014 order granting requiring him to seek leave prior to

28

making any future pro se filings in the Bankruptcy Court.
3

1

Plaintiff-Appellant first argues that the Bankruptcy Court lacked

2

jurisdiction to enter the order to show cause leading to the pre-

3

filing order or the pre-filing order because he had already filed

4

a notice of appeal.

5

notice of appeal does not divest the lower court of authority to

6

impose sanctions.

7

not divest the lower court of authority to enter a pre-filing

8

order.

9

However, as discussed above, the filing of a

Likewise, the filing of a notice of appeal does

Plaintiff-Appellant next argues that the Bankruptcy Court was

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

barred by res judicata from entering the pre-filing order because

11

it previously declined to enter such an order on January 17, 2014.

12

However, the Bankruptcy Court cited multiple instances of bad

13

faith filings that occurred between the time it originally

14

declined to enter a pre-filing order and the August 1, 2014 order.

15

The Bankruptcy Court was not revisiting a prior order.

16

it found that requirements for entering a pre-filing order had

17

been established.

18

Instead,

Next, Plaintiff-Appellant argues that the Court improperly

19

entered the pre-filing order because there was insufficient

20

evidence that he was abusing the judicial system to support the

21

order.

22

Court noted the following facts: (1) Plaintiff-Appellant “is

23

neither a debtor, creditor, nor party-in-interest in the

24

underlying bankruptcy case;” (2) Plaintiff-Appellant filed a

25

ninety-five-page complaint seeking damages of $50,000,000 in the

26

adversary proceeding, which it “found to have been filed in bad

27

faith and with an improper purpose;” (3) Plaintiff-Appellant filed

28

pro se involuntary bankruptcy petitions against Defendants-

However, in entering the pre-filing order, the Bankruptcy

4

1

Appellees Edith Mazzaferri and William Parisi, which Bankruptcy

2

Judge Jaroslovsky “dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff had no

3

cognizable claim;” (4) Judge Jaroslovsky also found the

4

involuntary petitions to be filed in bad faith.

5

Court Case No. 13-3240, Docket No. 87.

6

hearing, the Bankruptcy Court noted Plaintiff-Appellant’s “history

7

of litigation” and found that “it entail[ed] vexatious, harassing,

8

[and] duplicative lawsuits” in the Bankruptcy Court and other

9

courts.

Docket No. 7-2 at 15-16.

NDCA Bankruptcy

Moreover at the show cause

The Bankruptcy Court further

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

noted that Plaintiff-Appellant had been declared a vexatious

11

litigant in other courts.

12

sufficient to support the entry of the pre-filing order.

13

Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.3d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990).

16
17

See De

CONCLUSION

14
15

The Court holds that these findings are

For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy
Court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated:

November 26, 2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5