8Speed8, Inc. et al v. Snell & Wilmer, LLP et al
Filing
22
ORDER that the Bankruptcy Court's denial of Appellants' Show Cause Motion is reversed. This case is remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
8SPEED8, INC., and VIBE MICRO, INC.,
Appellants,
10
Case No. 2-16-cv-01531-MMD
ORDER
v.
11
SNELL & WILMER, LLP, et al.,
12
Appellees.
13
14
I.
SUMMARY
15
Before the Court is Appellants 8Speed8, Inc. (“Debtor”) and Vibe Micro, Inc.’s
16
(“VMI”) appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada’s
17
(“Bankruptcy Court”) June 3, 2016, order (“Order”) denying Appellants’ motion to show
18
cause on fraud on the court and for sanctions (“Show Cause Motion”).1 The Court has
19
reviewed Appellants’ opening brief (ECF No. 10), Appellees’ response (ECF No. 13), and
20
Appellants’ reply (ECF No. 15.) Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Court reverses
21
the Bankruptcy Court’s Order.
22
II.
BACKGROUND
23
Debtor is a Nevada corporation formerly in the business of developing a payment
24
services kiosk system. (ECF No. 10 at 10-11.) One of Debtor’s shareholders, Appellee
25
SIG Capital (“SIG”), filed a chapter 7 involuntary petition for relief against Debtor on
26
27
28
1Appellants
filed a motion to exceed page limits attached to the Show Cause Motion
in the Bankruptcy Court. (ECF No. 10 at 7.) The Bankruptcy Court denied both motions.
(ECF No. 11-2 at 76.)
1
December 13, 2013, thereby commencing the bankruptcy action. (Id. at 11.) VMI, another
2
of Debtor’s shareholders, filed a motion on behalf of Debtor seeking dismissal, summary
3
judgment, or abstention on January 10, 2014. (Id. at 12.) VMI also sought actual and
4
punitive damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, against SIG. (Id.)
5
The Bankruptcy Court granted VMI’s request for dismissal but denied VMI’s request
6
for damages, fees, and costs on September 15, 2014, finding that VMI lacked standing to
7
seek such relief on behalf of Debtor. (Id.) VMI appealed the dismissal order to the District
8
of Nevada on September 30, 2014 (“Nevada Appeal”). (Id. at 13.) The District of Nevada
9
affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision on May 22, 2017. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. SIG Capital,
10
LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01618-RFB, 2017 WL 2225569, at *4 (D. Nev. May 22, 2017).
11
While the appeal to the District of Nevada was pending, VMI filed a RICO case
12
(“Florida RICO Case”) against Appellees and other defendants in the District of Florida on
13
July 20, 2015, based on alleged “‘acts of obstruction of justice, bankruptcy fraud,
14
conspiracy, wire fraud, and threats of murder’ that occurred ‘both during and after the
15
dismissal of the [Bankruptcy Case].’” (ECF No. 10 at 15 (quoting ECF No. 11-1 at 106).)
16
The District of Florida dismissed VMI’s First Amended Complaint on December 4, 2015,
17
with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11-2 at 123.) The District of
18
Florida then dismissed VMI’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice on July 18, 2016.
19
(Id. at 127-28.)
20
While the Nevada Appeal and Florida RICO Case were pending, VMI and Debtor
21
filed the Show Cause Motion in the Bankruptcy Court, on January 27, 2016. (ECF No. 10
22
at 16.) The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion on June 3, 2016, finding that the court
23
lacked jurisdiction to consider the Show Cause Motion. (ECF No. 11-2 at 76-82, 86.)
24
Appellants now appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s Order.
25
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
26
A bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, “including its
27
interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code,” and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
28
In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 900 (9th Cir. 2005); In re Salazar, 430 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir.
2
1
2005). The bankruptcy court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous only if the findings
2
“leave the definite and firm conviction” that the bankruptcy court made a mistake. In re
3
Rains, 428 F.3d at 900. “A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it applies the law
4
incorrectly or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact.” In re
5
Brotby, 303 B.R. 177, 184 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003). In reviewing a bankruptcy court’s
6
decision, this Court ignores harmless errors. In re Mbunda, 484 B.R. 344, 355 (B.A.P. 9th
7
Cir. 2012). The Court may affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision “on any ground fairly
8
supported by the record.” In re Warren, 568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition,
9
the Court need not address arguments not raised in the trial court but “may do so to (1)
10
prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, (2) when
11
a change of law during the pendency of the appeal raises a new issue, or (3) when the
12
issue is purely one of law.” In re Lakhany, 538 B.R. 555, 560 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015).
13
IV.
DISCUSSION
14
A.
Claim Preclusion
15
Appellees contend that the District of Florida’s decision dismissing VMI’s Second
16
Amended Complaint has preclusive effect on the Show Cause Motion, thereby mooting
17
this appeal. (ECF No. 13 at 17.) Debtor and VMI counter that the only forum available for
18
raising the issue of sanctions in connection with Appellee’s conduct during the bankruptcy
19
action is the Bankruptcy Court. (ECF No. 15 at 9-10.) The Court agrees with Debtor and
20
VMI. “An exception to the general rule of claim preclusion exists where ‘[t]he plaintiff was
21
unable to rely on a certain theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy or form of relief
22
in the first action because of limitations on the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts.’”
23
Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Codispoti, 63 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting
24
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1)(c)). The District of Florida lacked subject
25
matter jurisdiction to consider sanctions against Appellees for their conduct relating to the
26
bankruptcy action. See Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he district
27
court did not have power to sanction conduct that occurred in a different court in a different
28
case.”). Accordingly, claim preclusion does not render this appeal moot.
3
Bankruptcy Court’s Jurisdiction
1
B.
2
Turning to the merits of this appeal, Debtor and VMI argue that the Bankruptcy
3
Court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Show
4
Cause Motion. (ECF No. 10 at 19.) The Bankruptcy Court concluded that it lacked subject
5
matter jurisdiction for three reasons: because the bankruptcy action had been dismissed,
6
because the Nevada Appeal was pending, and because the Florida RICO Case was
7
pending. (ECF No. 11-2 at 77-80, 86.)
8
The bankruptcy action’s dismissal did not deprive the Bankruptcy Court of
9
jurisdiction over the Show Cause Motion because bankruptcy courts retain jurisdiction
10
after dismissal “over related, post-closing motions, such as requests for sanctions.” In re
11
Menk, 241 B.R. 896, 912 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999); see also In re Johnson, 346 B.R. 190,
12
194 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006).
13
Nor did the pendency of the Nevada Appeal deprive the Bankruptcy Court of
14
jurisdiction over the Show Cause Motion. See United Energy Owners Comm., Inc. v. U.S.
15
Energy Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 358 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that a district court had
16
jurisdiction to impose sanctions while the plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment of dismissal
17
was pending). The Bankruptcy Court based its decision on a determination that the subject
18
of the Show Cause Motion was intertwined with the subject of the Nevada Appeal (ECF
19
No. 11-2 at 77-78), but there was no such entanglement. VMI and Debtor appealed the
20
Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal order based on the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that
21
VMI lacked standing to seek damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of Debtor.
22
(ECF No. 10 at 13-14.) By contrast, VMI and Debtor’s Show Cause Motion related to
23
Appellee’s alleged violation of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders during the bankruptcy
24
proceeding—not whether VMI had standing to seek damages and attorneys’ fees and
25
costs for SIG’s filing of the involuntary petition. (Id. at 15-16.)
26
Finally, while the pending Florida RICO Case might have constituted grounds for
27
abstention, Appellees have failed to explain how the pending Florida RICO Case would
28
deprive the Bankruptcy Court of jurisdiction.
4
1
2
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court erred in concluding that it
lacked jurisdiction to consider the Show Cause Motion.2
3
C.
4
Appellees essentially argue that the Bankruptcy Court’s error regarding jurisdiction
5
is harmless because the Order can be affirmed on other grounds. (See ECF No. 13 at 35-
6
36.) While the Court may affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s Order “on any ground fairly
7
supported by the record,” In re Warren, 568 F.3d at 1116, the Court cannot affirm on any
8
of the grounds Appellees put forth for the reasons described below.
9
Harmless Error
1.
Sufficiency of Show Cause Motion
10
Appellees first argue that VMI and Debtor’s Show Cause Motion was so deficient
11
that the Bankruptcy Court would have been compelled to deny it. (ECF No. 13 at 36-39,
12
40-44.) Appellees contend that the Bankruptcy Court had discretion to refuse to consider
13
the Show Cause Motion because it was unintelligible, exceeded the page limit, and gave
14
the court no basis to enter an order to show cause. (Id.) Appellees characterize the Show
15
Cause Motion as “a rambling, repetitive, and unintelligible recitation of bald allegations
16
unsupported by any relevant evidence followed by a laundry list of citations to various
17
provisions of Title 28 and the Bankruptcy Code without regard to relevance and without
18
regard to when, how, and by whom each provision was allegedly violated.” (Id. at 36-37.)
19
While the Show Cause Motion could be clearer, it includes cogent statements describing
20
alleged violations of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 363. (See, e.g.,
21
ECF No. 11-1 at 52 (“The alleged debtor’s corporate insiders then transferred the alleged
22
debtor’s assets consisting of business opportunities, kiosk manufacturing, designs, ideas,
23
customer contacts and other intangible ‘data dump’ from the alleged debtor to its
24
competitor Payteller; all without notice to the bankruptcy court and in direct violation of the
25
26
27
28
2Appellants
further argue that the Bankruptcy Court erred by assuming that Debtor
was not a movant for the purposes of the Show Cause Motion. (ECF No. 10 at 18.)
However, even if the Bankruptcy Court assumed that Debtor was not a movant, Appellants
have not argued or demonstrated that this purported mistake was relevant to the
Bankruptcy Court’s decision or amounts to anything more than harmless error. (See id.)
Accordingly, the Court finds this argument non-dispositive. In re Mbunda, 484 B.R. at 355.
5
1
automatic stay in violation of 11 USC § 362 and 11 USC § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.”)
2
(citation omitted); id. at 90-91 (“The alleged debtor corporate insiders, ISS Management,
3
and the Law Firm violated the automatic stay by the acquisition of ISS Management during
4
the bankruptcy proceedings without filing a motion to approve the transaction or otherwise
5
disclosing an interest in ISS Management during the bankruptcy proceedings. This is a
6
direct violation of the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC §§ [sic] 362 and 11 USC §
7
541(7).”).) Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court could have addressed problems with the form
8
of the Show Cause Motion by denying with leave to amend or requesting supplemental
9
briefing. Consequently, the Court finds Appellees’ argument as to the sufficiency of the
10
Show Cause Motion unpersuasive.
2.
11
Criminal Contempt Authority
12
Appellees further argue that the Bankruptcy Court would have been required to
13
deny the Show Cause Motion because the Bankruptcy Court lacks authority to enter an
14
order of criminal contempt. (ECF No. 13 at 39.) However, the Show Cause Motion
15
contemplated civil contempt in addition to criminal contempt. (ECF No. 15 at 13; see also
16
ECF No. 11-1 at 93.) Given that the Bankruptcy Court had authority to grant at least some
17
of the relief requested in the Show Cause Motion, Appellees’ argument is unpersuasive.
3.
18
Colorado River Abstention
19
Appellees further argue that the Bankruptcy Court could have abstained from
20
deciding the Show Cause Motion under the Colorado River3 doctrine based on the
21
pendency of the Florida RICO Case. (ECF No. 13 at 44.) Even if the Bankruptcy Court
22
could have abstained, however, there is no longer any basis for abstention because the
23
Florida RICO Case has concluded. Thus, the Court cannot affirm the Bankruptcy Court on
24
the ground that it could have abstained.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
3Colo.
River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
6
1
V.
CONCLUSION
2
The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases
3
not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines
4
that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
5
It is therefore ordered that the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of Appellants’ Show Cause
6
Motion is reversed. This case is remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings
7
consistent with this decision.
8
DATED THIS 9th day of March 2018.
9
10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?