In Re: Christopher Rabalais v. Seth Leon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 21-60025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CHRISTOPHER PAUL RABALAIS, No. 21-60025

Debtor, BAP No. 20-1216

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER PAUL RABALAIS,

Appellant,

v.

SETH LEON,

Appellee.

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

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Paul Rabalais appeals pro se from the decision of the

* 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). Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing

creditor Seth Leon to dismiss voluntarily an adversary proceeding. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s

conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Decker v. Tramiel (In re

JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Leon to

dismiss voluntarily his adversary complaint because Rabalais failed to show legal

prejudice. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth

standard of review and stating a court “should grant a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some

plain legal prejudice as a result.”).

We reject as meritless Rabalais’s contentions concerning res judicata and

whether the judgment debt is dischargeable.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-60025