In Re: Neal Jones v. Ruchir Patel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 14, 2023
• Docket: 23-60018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 14 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: NEAL JONES; AMY JONES, No. 23-60018

Debtors, BAP No. 22-1104

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* NEAL JONES; AMY JONES,

Appellants,

v.

RUCHIR PATEL,

Appellee.

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

Submitted November 9, 2023** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: SCHROEDER, COLLINS, and DESAI, 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). The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of judgment creditor,

Ruchir Patel, holding that his Illinois judgment was enforceable against the

community property of Appellants Neal and Amy Jones in Arizona. The

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirmed, and the Joneses appeal. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.

Appellants contend that under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(D), the judgment is

not enforceable against the community because Patel did not join both spouses in

the Illinois action. We have held that § 25-215(D) does not require joinder to

execute a foreign judgment against community property where, as here, the debt is

a community obligation, and there was no basis to name both spouses in the

foreign action. See Gagan v. Sharar, 376 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2004).

Appellants acknowledge Gagan but contend that an intervening Arizona

Supreme Court decision undermines its holding. See Lattin v. Shamrock

Materials, LLC, 503 P.3d 116 (Ariz. 2022). Lattin, however, involved an award of

fees and costs, not a foreign judgment. Id. at 120. It did not affect the validity of

Gagan or overrule any of the cases on which Gagan relied.

There is no reason to certify this case to the Arizona Supreme Court. See

Childress v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 978 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 2020). Gagan

2 assesses the relevant Arizona case law and is binding precedent requiring

affirmance. Certification would only create further delay.

AFFIRMED.