In Re: Cesar Perez v. Tiffany Carroll

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-60047
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CESAR MONTIEL PEREZ, No. 22-60047

Debtor, BAP No. 21-1173

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* MAURICE GRAYTON,

Appellant,

v.

TIFFANY L. CARROLL, United States Trustee, San Diego,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Lafferty III, Brand, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Maurice Grayton appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment imposing

fines and damages under 11 U.S.C. § 110 in an adversary proceeding filed by the

United States Trustee against Grayton. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of

review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s rulings. Boyajian v. New

Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because Grayton

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he complied with the

disclosure requirements and practice prohibitions for bankruptcy petition preparers

under 11 U.S.C. § 110. See Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 979 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir.

2020) (“A grant of summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” (citation omitted)). We reject as unpersuasive Grayton’s contention that the

bankruptcy court erred in awarding $2,990 in fines and damages. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 110(l)(1) (authorizing a fine of up to $500 for each failure “to comply with any

provision of subsection (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h).”).

The bankruptcy court properly denied Grayton’s demand for a jury trial

because there is no right to a jury trial in adversary proceedings brought under 11

U.S.C. § 110. See Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 53–54 (1989)

2 22-60047 (“[I]f Congress may assign the adjudication of a statutory cause of action to a non-

Article III tribunal, then the Seventh Amendment poses no independent bar to the

adjudication of that action by a nonjury factfinder.”).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 22-60047