In Re Lenore Luann Albert-Sheridan

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 13, 2022
• Docket: 8:21-cv-01404
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:296

JS-6 1 O 2

7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10 11 In re: LENORE L. ALBERT-SHERIDAN, Case № 8:21-cv-01404-ODW 12 Debtor. Bankruptcy Case № 8:18-bk-10548-ES 13 14 LENORE L. ALBERT-SHERIDAN, Adversary Case № 8:21-ap-1024-SC

15 Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 v. 17 PHILIP WILTON GREEN et al.,

18 Defendants-Appellees. 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Appellant Lenore Luann Albert-Sheridan is the debtor in a bankruptcy 22 proceeding and the Plaintiff in a related adversary proceeding before the United States 23 Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California. Upon motion of 24 Defendants/Appellees Philip Wilton Green; 10675 Orange Park Blvd., LLC (“Orange 25 Park LLC”); Gary A. Schneider; and Francis B. Lantieri brought pursuant to Federal 26 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) in the adversary proceeding, the court 27 dismissed Albert-Sheridan’s complaint. (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 1.) Albert- 28 Sheridan contends that the court erred in dismissing her complaint with prejudice and Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:297

1 seeks this Court’s review. (Appellant’s Opening Br. (“Br.”) 1, ECF No. 7.) As 2 discussed below, Albert-Sheridan fails to state a claim, and the failure is not curable 3 by amendment. The Court accordingly AFFIRMS the judgment of dismissal. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 A. Unlawful Detainer Action, Discovery Sanctions, and Disciplinary Action 6 Green is an attorney who, in 2012, represented Orange Park LLC, Schneider, 7 and Lantieri (the “Client Defendants”) in initiating unlawful detainer proceedings in a 8 case captioned 10675 S. Orange Park Blvd., LLC v. Norman Koshak et al., Case 9 No. 30-2012-00568954-CL-UD-CJC in the Superior Court of Orange County. The 10 defendants in that action were foreclosed homeowners Norman and Helen Koshak, for 11 whom Albert-Sheridan provided legal representation. As part of the proceedings, the 12 Orange County Superior Court imposed discovery sanctions on Albert-Sheridan 13 jointly and severally with the Koshaks in the amount of $5,738. (Excerpts of R. 14 (“ER”) Tab No. 9 (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Adversary Proceeding (“Adv. 15 Order”)) 2, ECF No. 7-1 (citing Complaint in adversary proceeding).) Herein, the 16 Court refers to the Superior Court order that imposed sanctions on Albert-Sheridan as 17 the “Judgment.” 18 On December 18, 2015, Green recorded an Abstract of Judgment in the Orange 19 County Recorder’s Office in the amount of $5,738, in favor of the Client Defendants 20 and against Albert-Sheridan. (Id.) From that time to the time she filed her Adversary 21 Complaint, Albert-Sheridan did not own any real property in Orange County. (ER Tab 22 No. 2 (“Adversary Compl.”) ¶ 18, ECF No. 7-1.) 23 On December 13, 2017, the California Supreme Court suspended Albert- 24 Sheridan’s license to practice law and placed her on a probation which would lift after, 25 among other things, Albert-Sheridan paid Orange Park LLC the above-mentioned 26 $5,738 plus 10% interest. (Id. ¶ 20; Br. 3.) 27 28

2 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:298

1 B. Bankruptcy Proceedings 2 On February 20, 2018, Albert-Sheridan filed for bankruptcy protection under 3 Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. (Adversary Compl. ¶ 21.) She listed Green 4 and Orange Park LLC as creditors and provided them with notice of the bankruptcy 5 proceedings. (Id. ¶ 22.) On June 26, 2018, the bankruptcy court converted Albert- 6 Sheridan’s bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 proceeding.1 (Id. ¶ 25.) 7 On October 26, 2018, Green, on behalf of the Client Defendants, prepared and 8 filed a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, asserting an unsecured claim to 9 the bankruptcy estate based on the $5,738 sanctions award. (Id.) The claim was in 10 the amount of $8,929.27, excluding interest. (Id.) 11 On February 26, 2019, Albert-Sheridan received a discharge from the 12 bankruptcy court. (Id. ¶ 28.) 13 C. Adversary Proceedings 14 Sometime thereafter, on June 10, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in In 15 re Albert-Sheridan, 960 F.3d 1188 (2020), found that the sanctions Albert-Sheridan 16 owed to Green and his clients were dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 727(b), noting 17 that, “[a]lthough the California Supreme Court conditioned Albert’s reinstatement on 18 payment of the sanctions in its order of discipline, Albert’s debt compensates a private 19 party for the costs of litigating civil discovery motions for its own benefit.” 960 F.3d 20 at 1195–96. Following this ruling, on May 27, 2021, Albert-Sheridan again asked 21 Green and the Client Defendants to file a Satisfaction of Judgment as to the sanctions 22 award and record it with the County Recorder or otherwise rescind the Abstract of 23 Judgment. (Adversary Compl. ¶ 37.) The next day, Green’s attorney responded to 24 Albert-Sheridan, refusing to do so and setting forth his position that “the underlying 25 26

1 In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, debtors with wages or other regular income discharge their debts by 27 making installment payments to creditors over three to five years. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1321–1330. In 28 Chapter 7 bankruptcy, a debtor’s assets are liquidated to satisfy the claims of creditors, 11 U.S.C. §§ 721–728.

3 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:299

1 lien (Abstract of Judgement [sic]) is not nullified unless expressly ordered by the 2 Bankruptcy Court.” (Id. Ex. A.) 3 On May 31, 2021, Albert-Sheridan brought an adversary proceeding against 4 Green and the Client Defendants (herein, “Appellees”), seeking (1) declaratory relief 5 and (2) relief for violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay and the discharge 6 injunction. Albert-Sheridan’s Adversary Complaint centers on two principal wrongs 7 Appellees allegedly committed. First, Albert-Sheridan alleged that Appellees 8 wrongfully filed the Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy proceeding, not only because 9 the stated amount of the claim was incorrect and inflated, (id. ¶ 83), but also because 10 they filed the Proof of Claim “merely to harass Plaintiff and make it appear that the 11 ‘sanctions’ were for bad faith conduct and not civil discovery sanctions,” (id. ¶ 62). 12 Albert-Sheridan sought an order requiring Appellees to withdraw the Proof of Claim, 13 as well as compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. ¶¶ 63(c), 74–81.) 14 Second, Albert-Sheridan alleged that the discharge order of the bankruptcy 15 court operated to discharge the Judgment and accordingly required Appellees to 16 (1) file a Satisfaction of Judgment in the court that issued the sanction orders (the 17 Orange County Superior Court) and (2) record it with the Orange County Recorder’s 18 office or otherwise rescind or release the Abstract of Judgment Appellees had filed 19 there. (Id.¶ 63.) Albert-Sheridan sought a declaration that, to the extent the Abstract 20 of Judgment constitutes a judgment lien, the lien is void; she also sought an injunction 21 requiring Appellees to file a Satisfaction of Judgment in the Orange County Superior 22 Court and record it in the Orange County Recorder’s office. (Id. ¶¶ 63(b), (c), 65.) 23 On July 6, 2021, Green filed, in the adversary proceeding, a Motion to Dismiss 24 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Albert-Sheridan failed to state a claim upon 25 which relief could be granted and that her Complaint should be dismissed with 26 prejudice. Albert-Sheridan opposed. (Adv. Order 3.) 27 The court granted Green’s Motion as to both her claims. First, it found 28 declaratory relief “unnecessary,” citing In re Kenney, No. 1:10-bk-11635-GM,

4 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:300

1 2018 WL 6039094, at *2 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018), and other cases that 2 reached the same result on similar facts. (Adv. Order 6.) It reasoned that, accepting 3 Albert-Sheridan’s allegations as true, the fact that she owned no real property in 4 Orange County at the time the Abstract of Judgment was recorded meant that “any 5 purported lien sought to be avoided by Albert simply does not exist . . . . [I]f there is 6 no lien, there is nothing for her to avoid.” (Id.) Furthermore, the court found no 7 authority to support Albert-Sheridan’s “assertion that creditors have an affirmative 8 duty to withdraw a pre-petition abstract of judgment and vacate judgment orders after 9 a petition has been filed or a discharge has been entered,” nor any authority to 10 “demonstrate that the filing of a proof of claim could be a violation of the automatic 11 stay or discharge injunction.” (Id. at 7.) The court found that these defects could not 12 be saved by amendment and dismissed the entire Adversary Complaint without leave 13 to amend. (Id.) Furthermore, it found the grounds for dismissal applicable to all 14 Defendants in the adversary proceeding and dismissed the entire Adversary Complaint 15 pursuant to Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir. 1981). (Id. at 8.) 16 D. Appeal 17 On August 25, 2021, Albert-Sheridan filed her Notice of Appeal in this Court, 18 naming all Defendants as Appellees. On October 1, 2021, she filed her opening brief. 19 Appellees did not oppose or otherwise appear, and on December 1, 2021, the Court 20 ordered Albert-Sheridan to file additional documents confirming that Appellees were 21 on notice of this appeal. (Min. Order, ECF No. 10.) That same day, Albert-Sheridan 22 filed additional proofs of service and declarations regarding service and notice on 23 Appellees. (ECF Nos. 11–17.) 24 III. ISSUE ON APPEAL 25 The issue on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in dismissing Albert- 26 Sheridan’s Complaint against Appellees in the adversary proceeding. The structure of 27 Albert-Sheridan’s brief and arguments suggest four areas of inquiry: (1) Can Albert- 28 Sheridan obtain a declaration requiring Appellees to file a Satisfaction of Judgment or

5 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:301

1 other related relief? (2) Can Albert-Sheridan obtain a declaration requiring Appellees 2 to rescind the Abstract of Judgment in the county recorder’s office or other related 3 relief? (3) Can Albert-Sheridan obtain relief for Appellees having filed a Proof of 4 Claim in the bankruptcy proceedings? and (4) Is Albert-Sheridan entitled to leave to 5 amend? 6 IV. JURISDICTION AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 7 The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) 8 and is sitting as a single-judge court of appeal. The traditional appellate review 9 standards apply. The Court reviews the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law 10 de novo and its factual findings for clear error. In re Salazar, 430 F.3d 992, 994 11 (9th Cir. 2005). In particular, the district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s order 12 granting Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss with prejudice de novo. I.R.S. v. 13 Snyder, 343 F.3d 1171, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re EPD Inv. Co., LLC, 14 523 B.R. 680, 684 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (“The bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an 15 adversary complaint for failure to state a claim under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed 16 de novo.”). 17 A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable 18 legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal 19 theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To 20 survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading 21 requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) by setting forth a short and plain statement of the claim. 22 Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual “allegations must be 23 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 24 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 25 (holding that a claim must be “plausible on its face” to avoid dismissal). 26 The determination of whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a 27 “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 28 experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A court is generally limited

6 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:302

1 to the pleadings and must construe all “factual allegations set forth in the 2 complaint . . . as true and . . . in the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City 3 of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 Where a trial court grants a motion to dismiss, it should generally provide leave 5 to amend unless it is clear the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. See 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 7 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Leave to amend may be denied when “the court determines that 8 the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly 9 cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 10 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986); Carrico v. City & County of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 11 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[Leave to amend] is properly denied . . . if amendment 12 would be futile.”). 13 V. DISCUSSION 14 As a preliminary matter, having reviewed the supplemental proofs of service 15 and declarations Albert-Sheridan filed on December 1, 2021, the Court finds Albert- 16 Sheridan’s demonstration of service on and notice to Appellees to be sufficient and 17 proceeds to the merits of the appeal. For the following reasons, the Court finds that 18 Albert-Sheridan fails to state a claim in her Adversary Complaint and accordingly 19 affirms the dismissal of the Adversary Complaint. 20 A. Albert-Sheridan alleged nothing giving rise to relief with regard to the 21 Abstract of Judgment in the Orange County Recorder’s Office. 22 First, even when viewing the allegations in Adversary Complaint in the light 23 most favorable to Albert-Sheridan, the Court finds no validly stated claim for relief 24 with respect to the Abstract of Judgment. The following general background 25 regarding abstracts of judgment is helpful: 26 [A]n abstract of judgment is recorded by the prevailing party after a court 27 has awarded judgment and it attaches to all of the losing party’s ownership interests in real property in the county in which the abstract is 28 recorded. It makes the judgment creditor a secured creditor and, by

7 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:303

statute, can be extinguished only by the recording of an acknowledgment 1 of satisfaction of the underlying judgment or by the judgment creditor’s 2 release of the lien. 3 4 Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton, 17 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1070 (1993) (citations 5 omitted). Moreover, “[s]ection 697.340(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure 6 provides that, if any real property is acquired after the judgment lien is recorded, the 7 judgment lien attaches to the property at the time it is acquired.” In re Baker, 8 217 B.R. 609, 613 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1998). However, when a property lien, 9 including an abstract of judgment, has been recorded, and the debtor never owns any 10 property, the lien never exists in the first place, because it lacks an underlying 11 attachable res. In re Kenney, 2018 WL 6039094, at *2 (“[T]his result is consistent 12 with the definition of ‘lien’ under the California Code of Civil Procedure: ‘[a] lien is a 13 charge imposed upon specific property, by which it is made security for the 14 performance of an act.’” (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1180)); In re Thomas, 15 102 B.R. 199, 201 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1989) (“[A] lien cannot exist in the absence of an 16 underlying attachable ‘res.’”). 17 Here, Albert-Sheridan alleged that she is entitled to monetary and declaratory 18 relief arising from Defendants’ refusal to file Satisfactions of Judgment and to rescind 19 the Abstract of Judgment filed in the county recorder’s office. Albert-Sheridan argues 20 that these refusals, along with Defendants’ assertion that the lien was not discharged 21 in bankruptcy, amount to a wrongful attempt to collect on the lien. 22 The Court rejects this argument, given Albert-Sheridan’s own allegation that 23 she owned no property at the time the case was filed and the case law providing that a 24 lien does not exist in the absence of attachable property or other res. Kenney, 25 2018 WL 6039094, at *2; see In re Davis, No. 07-00622, 2007 WL 2710403, at *3 26 (Bankr. D. Idaho Sept. 13, 2007) (“Debtors’ attempt to avoid judicial liens that do not 27 yet exist on property they do not yet own is not authorized by the Code.”); cf. Baker, 28 217 B.R. at 613 (“A lien may not ‘survive’ bankruptcy unless it first exists.”). As

8 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:304

1 alleged, the judgment lien never existed at any point, because Albert-Sheridan never 2 owned property in Orange County at any point. Future developments in Albert- 3 Sheridan’s bankruptcy proceedings could have done nothing to alter a nonexistent 4 lien, and accordingly, there is nothing to declare with respect to the bankruptcy 5 proceedings’ effect on the lien. If Albert-Sheridan were to acquire property in Orange 6 County now or in the future and Appellees were to attempt to collect against that 7 property, as the bankruptcy court pointed out, Appellees “could be subject to 8 sanctions” because their behavior would violate the bankruptcy discharge order.2 9 (Adv. Order 6 (citing Kenney, 2018 WL 6039094, at *2).) 10 It is for this reason that Albert-Sheridan’s concerns about the lien “springing 11 back to life” appear unfounded. As Albert-Sheridan’s own citation to In re 12 Wagabaza, 582 B.R. 486, 501 n.16 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2018) indicates, “[a]fter the 13 obligation manifested by the judgment is discharged”—as Albert-Sheridan argues 14 happened here as a result of her bankruptcy—“the abstract has no effect on after- 15 acquired property because the underlying debt no longer exists.” Accord Local Loan 16 Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 243 (1934) (“[I]t logically cannot be supposed that the 17 [Bankruptcy] [A]ct nevertheless intended to keep such debts alive for the purpose of 18 permitting the creation of an enforceable lien upon a subject not existent when the 19 bankruptcy became effective or even arising from, or connected with, preexisting 20 property.”). 21 B. Albert-Sheridan alleged nothing giving rise to relief with regard to the 22 Judgment of the Orange County Superior Court. 23 Moreover, nothing Albert-Sheridan alleged in the Adversary Complaint 24 suggests she is entitled to an injunction requiring Defendants to file Satisfactions of 25

26 2 As noted, Green’s counsel, in his letter to Albert-Sheridan, insisted that the “underlying lien (Abstract of [Judgment]) is not nullified unless expressly ordered by the Bankruptcy Court.” 27 (Compl. Ex. A.) While this assertion could have been more clearly drafted, it is technically correct 28 and is not at odds with the Court’s analysis. The discharge of Albert-Sheridan’s debts in bankruptcy did not nullify the “underlying lien” because there was never any underlying lien to nullify.

9 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:305

1 Judgment in the Orange County Superior Court. The bankruptcy court found no law, 2 and Albert-Sheridan presently cites no law, suggesting that parties possessing properly 3 obtained judgments that have been discharged in bankruptcy are in violation of 4 discharge orders or substantive bankruptcy law by innocent inaction, such as by 5 failing to file a Satisfaction of Judgment. The case In re Achterberg, 573 B.R. 819 6 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2017), cited by Albert-Sheridan, is not apposite because in that case 7 the void judgment, a default judgment, was itself obtained in violation of an automatic 8 bankruptcy stay. 573 B.R. at 824. That is, the automatic stay was already in place 9 when the defendant obtained the void judgment, and the Achterberg court focused its 10 analysis on the wrongfulness of failing to vacate a judgment that the defendants knew 11 was wrongfully obtained and entered from the outset. Id. at 830 (“Defendant 12 knowingly obtained a default judgment against Plaintiff-Debtors in February 2009, 13 which occurred after commencement of the Plaintiff-Debtor’s bankruptcy case in 14 December 2008. . . . What Defendant admits is that it had full knowledge of the 15 bankruptcy case by the time it received the [void judgment].”). Here, by contrast, 16 Albert-Sheridan does not contend that the $5,738 Judgment itself was wrongfully 17 obtained or entered. Instead, she contends that the Judgment later became void as a 18 result of discharge in bankruptcy, and that as a result, Appellees were obligated to act. 19 As this contention finds no support in case law, the Court finds that Albert-Sheridan 20 failed to allege entitlement to an injunction requiring Defendants to file Satisfactions 21 of Judgment. 22 C. Albert-Sheridan alleged nothing giving rise to relief with regard to the 23 Proof of Claim Appellees asserted against Albert-Sheridan. 24 Albert-Sheridan also alleged that the filing of the incorrect Proof of Claim in 25 the bankruptcy proceedings was a violation of the automatic stay and the discharge 26 injunction. 27 On appeal, Albert-Sheridan presents no authority confirming that the filing of a 28 proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding, in and of itself, entitles the bankrupt

10 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:306

1 plaintiff to declaratory relief or monetary damages for Appellees’ violation of the 2 bankruptcy stay. Albert-Sheridan cites In re Hager, 510 B.R. 131 (Bankr. W.D. 3 Mich. 2014), but that case is inapposite for the simple reason that the creditor in that 4 case actually attempted to collect the debt after it had been discharged in bankruptcy 5 by filing a lawsuit against the debtor. 510 B.R. at 132. The court ordered the creditor 6 to file a partial satisfaction of judgment in the lawsuit indicating that the debt that 7 arose prepetition was discharged. Id. at 139–40. Here, by contrast, Appellees have 8 not filed a lawsuit or other action to collect on the sanction, so the remedies and 9 holding in Hager do not apply. 10 Moreover, as the bankruptcy court observed, filing a proof of claim is a routine 11 part of bankruptcy proceedings and is the way a party asserts a claim to a bankruptcy 12 estate, and if the mere filing of a proof of claim constituted a violation of an automatic 13 stay, bankruptcy proceedings would be highly burdensome. (Adv. Order 7.) 14 Additionally and alternatively, the litigation privilege would likely operate to 15 bar Albert-Sheridan’s claims to the extent they are based on the mere filing of 16 documents in a court case. In re Cedar Funding, Inc., 419 B.R. 807, 825 (B.A.P. 17 9th Cir. 2009) (“A bankruptcy proceeding is a judicial proceeding within the scope of 18 California’s litigation privilege.”). This observation applies to the inflated dollar 19 amount of the claim as much as to the very act of filing the Proof of Claim. Neither of 20 these actions can form the basis of a claim because both are protected by the litigation 21 privilege. 22 For these reasons, Albert-Sheridan failed to state a claim for relief, such that 23 granting Appellees’ Motion and dismissing Albert-Sheridan’s Adversary Complaint 24 was appropriate.3 25 3 Sections IV.A, B, and C of this Order describe why Albert-Sheridan’s contentions and demands for 26 relief fail as a matter of law, without particular regard to the exact claim or cause of action under which the contention or demand was made. As an additional, alternative basis for dismissal of part 27 of the second claim, the Court notes that “[a]lthough a discharge under § 524 provides broad 28 injunctive and declaratory relief, it does not create a private right of action for damages arising from its violation.” Hager, 510 B.R. at 136; Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 510 (9th Cir.

11 Case 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Document 18 Filed 05/13/22 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:307

1 D. Granting leave to amend would be futile. 2 The final issue is whether it is appropriate to provide Albert-Sheridan leave to 3 amend. When Appellees moved to dismiss in bankruptcy court, they requested 4 dismissal without leave to amend, (ER Tab No. 6 (“Mot. Dismiss.”) 9), and in 5 opposing the motion to dismiss, Albert-Sheridan offered no suggestions regarding 6 how she might amend her complaint to state a claim. (ER Tab No. 7 (“Opp’n Mot. 7 Dismiss”).) She likewise makes no such suggestion now. (See generally Br.) It is the 8 initial burden of the pleading party to “demonstrat[e] a legitimate reason for 9 amendment,” In re Zetta Jet USA, Inc., 624 B.R. 461, 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2020) 10 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)), and Albert-Sheridan does not meet 11 this burden. 12 Additionally, as discussed, Albert-Sheridan’s claims fail as a matter of law 13 based on the allegations she set forth. Amendment would be futile because any 14 amendment would necessarily be inconsistent with allegations previously asserted or 15 would constitute an entirely different lawsuit altogether. Leave to amend is properly 16 denied. 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27

28 2002). Thus, Albert-Sheridan cannot obtain any relief for violation of the discharge order, no matter what the facts supporting that violation may be.

12 Calbe 8:21-cv-01404-ODW Documenti18 Filed 05/13/22 Page o0f13 Page ID #:308

1 VI. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Bankruptcy Court in the adversary 3 || proceeding is AFFIRMED. (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) The Clerk of the Court shall close this 4 || case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 May 13, 2022 Re gg g A eo x

10 OTIS D. SisTRI I 1 UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28