FILED JUL 03 2013 SUSAN M SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL 1 OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 4 OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5 6 In re: ) BAP No. CC-12-1238-PaDKi ) 7 ROBERT LEWIN, ) Bankr. No. 10-13047 ) 8 Debtor. ) Adv. No. 10-1427 ______________________________) 9 ) PETER SZANTO, ) 10 ) Appellant, ) 11 ) v. ) M E M O R A N D U M1 12 ) ROBERT LEWIN, ) 13 ) Appellee. ) 14 ______________________________) 15 Argued and Submitted on June 20, 2013 at Pasadena, California 16 Filed - July 3, 2013 17 Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court 18 for the Central District of California 19 Honorable Deborah Saltzman, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding 20 Appearances: Appellant Peter Szanto and Appellee Robert Lewin 21 argued pro se. 22 Before: PAPPAS, DUNN and KIRSCHER, Bankruptcy Judges. 23 24 25 26 1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication. 27 Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have (see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1), it has no precedential value. See 9th 28 Cir. BAP Rule 8013-1.
-1- 1 Alleged creditor Peter Szanto (“Szanto”) appeals the decision 2 of the bankruptcy court dismissing his adversary complaint 3 against chapter 72 debtor Robert Lewin (“Lewin”) for lack of 4 standing. We VACATE and REMAND. 5 FACTS 6 Szanto is a licensed real estate broker in California. Lewin 7 is a member of the California bar. 8 The dispute between Szanto and Lewin began in 2003 and 9 eventually spawned several civil actions and probate proceedings. 10 We have inadequate information in the record to detail these 11 matters, except that they appear to implicate disputes between 12 Lewin and Szanto, and other members of Szanto’s family, including 13 his late son Phillip, over family trust and estate matters. Lewin 14 was seemingly involved in these disputes as a friend and attorney 15 of Phillip. 16 Of direct interest in this appeal is a lawsuit filed in state 17 court on May 14, 2008, Szanto v. Lewin, no. 499366 (Superior Court 18 Riverside County) (the “Riverside Action”). Szanto’s complaint 19 against Lewin alleged two causes of action: (1) That Lewin 20 negligently interfered with Szanto’s business plans for his son. 21 More specifically, Szanto alleged that he had trained his son to 22 be his partner in his real estate brokerage business, and although 23 Phillip had qualified as a broker, he was spending increasing 24 amounts of time in Lewin’s company. (2) For intentional torts, and 25 in particular, that Lewin removed mail from Szanto’s mailbox; that 26 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all chapter, section and rule 27 references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, and to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rules 1001-9037. The 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are referred to as "Civil Rules."
-2- 1 Lewin made untrue statements to San Mateo Protective Services so 2 as to obtain personal information about Szanto; that Lewin 3 intentionally trespassed in Szanto’s home with intent to commit a 4 felony; that Lewin intentionally published untrue statements about 5 Szanto; and that Lewin represented to Phillip that Lewin loved 6 Phillip more than his father, Szanto. When Lewin did not respond 7 to Szanto’s complaint, a clerk’s default was entered against Lewin 8 in the Riverside Action on May 11, 2009. However, no default 9 judgment was entered by the state court. 10 Lewin filed a chapter 13 petition on February 3, 2010. 11 Neither his schedules nor his statement of financial affairs 12 mentioned the pending legal proceedings with Szanto. Lewin 13 converted the case to one under chapter 7 on March 24, 2010. 14 On May 17, 2010, Szanto filed a motion for relief from the 15 automatic stay in the bankruptcy case seeking permission to 16 continue his prosecution of the Riverside Action. Lewin responded 17 on June 4, 2010, arguing that Szanto’s claims in the Riverside 18 Action were frivolous and a sham, and noting that a judgment had 19 not been entered. The bankruptcy court held a hearing on Szanto’s 20 motion on June 17, 2010, with Szanto and Lewin both appearing pro 21 se. After apparently reciting its oral findings and conclusions, 22 the court granted the motion authorizing Szanto “to proceed to 23 judgment in the state court”; a transcript of this hearing is 24 neither included in the excerpts nor on the bankruptcy court’s 25 docket. Lewin did not appeal this order. 26 Szanto then commenced the adversary proceeding involved in 27 this appeal on July 6, 2010. The complaint somewhat tracked the 28 allegations made in the state court complaint. Szanto’s first
-3- 1 claim for relief in the complaint sought an exception to discharge 2 under § 523(a)(6) for the debts arising from the various 3 intentional torts Lewin allegedly committed as asserted in the 4 Riverside Action. The second claim for relief, read liberally, 5 requests that Lewin be denied a discharge under § 727(a)(2) 6 because Lewin had allegedly concealed assets, including a gold 7 Rolex watch and a gold Montblanc pen, and because Lewin’s 8 statement in his schedules that a valuable stamp collection was 9 worth only $2500 was false. Szanto’s third claim alleged that 10 Lewin’s bankruptcy was filed in bad faith, to avoid a possible 11 judgment in the Riverside Action. There is no specific relief 12 requested concerning this claim. 13 Lewin filed an answer to the complaint on August 18, 2010, 14 asserting, inter alia, that: (1) Szanto was not a creditor because 15 he held no viable claim against Lewin; (2) no judgment had been 16 entered in the Riverside Action; (3) Lewin, as attorney for 17 Phillip, was immune from prosecution for the actions he took in 18 representing his client; and (4) Szanto is an adjudged vexatious 19 litigant. 20 Szanto sought to amend his complaint on November 24, 2010, to 21 add claims for denial of Lewin’s discharge under § 727(a)(3) and 22 (4). He also sought to compel discovery responses from Lewin and 23 requested an award of discovery sanctions, an order rejecting the 24 U.S. Trustee’s report filed in Lewin’s case, and requiring the 25 U.S. Trustee to reexamine Lewin’s schedules and reevaluate Lewin’s 26 eligibility for bankruptcy relief under the means test. Lewin 27 responded to Szanto’s request to amend the complaint on 28 December 16, 2010, again asserting that Szanto was not a creditor
-4- 1 and was a vexatious litigant. The bankruptcy court held a hearing 2 on Szanto’s various motions on December 20, 2010. There is no 3 transcript in the record or docket, but the court’s docket entry 4 indicates that Szanto’s motions were denied. On April 12, 2011, 5 the bankruptcy court entered an order denying all of Szanto’s 6 motions. 7 The bankruptcy court then, sua sponte, on May 10, 2011, 8 entered an Order to Show Cause (“OSC 1") directing Lewin to appear 9 and explain why his answer should not be stricken and default 10 entered against him for his failure to defend. Szanto moved for 11 summary judgment on May 12, 2011, arguing that there were no 12 issues of material fact to be determined and judgment should be 13 entered in the adversary in his favor as a matter of law. 14 Lewin and Szanto exchanged a series of replies and objections 15 to OSC 1 and the summary judgment motion, generally arguing about 16 Szanto’s creditor status and Lewin’s assertions that Szanto’s 17 claims were without merit and whether unresolved material 18 questions of fact remained. 19 The bankruptcy court held a hearing on Szanto’s motion for 20 summary judgment on June 24, 2011. There is no transcript of the 21 hearing in the record or docket. However, the court’s minute 22 entry on the docket states: 23 DENIED. Tentative Ruling. This is the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. It is the moving party’s 24 burden to establish grounds for summary judgment — specifically, that the pleadings, the discovery and 25 disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 26 and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); see Celotex Corp. v. 27 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also In re Mannie, 258 B.R. 440, 443 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2001). 28 Here the Plaintiff has filed an adversary proceeding to
-5- 1 determine that Defendant’s debt is not dischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. 2 However, the Plaintiff falls far short of meeting its burden. Nowhere does Plaintiff specify the exact debt 3 or claim he seeks to have determined nondischargeable, let alone list a specific damage figure amount. The 4 parties are engaged in litigation (although the Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss certain actions) and 5 there is no evidence of any judgment or default judgment in any court. There are still actions pending in state 6 court. At this stage, there are genuine issues of material fact yet to be determined including the 7 existence and amount of the debt at issue. 8 As can be seen, the bankruptcy court’s docket entry identifies 9 this notation as a “tentative ruling,” but places the word DENIED 10 in caps. There is no indication in the docket that a formal order 11 was entered denying the motion for summary judgment. 12 The bankruptcy court, again acting sua sponte, on December 9, 13 2011, entered another Order to Show Cause to Lewin to appear and 14 explain why the court should not strike his answer and enter 15 default (“OSC 2"). Lewin and Szanto again exchanged responses, 16 with Szanto suggesting that Lewin failed to attend hearings, and 17 Lewin answering that he had attended all noticed court proceedings 18 and hearings. 19 There is no indication in the docket that the bankruptcy 20 court ever heard or ruled on OSC 2. Instead, on February 22, 21 2012, the court entered yet another sua sponte Order to Show Cause 22 (“OSC 3"), but this time it was directed to Szanto and commanded 23 him to appear at a hearing and explain why the adversary 24 proceeding should not be dismissed because Szanto is not a 25 creditor and thus lacks standing to prosecute the action. In 26 OSC 3, the bankruptcy court explained that, 27 The Bankruptcy Code defines a “creditor” to be only those entities holding a “claim against the debtor that 28 arose at the time of or before the order for
-6- 1 relief. . . . 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). Further, the Bankruptcy Code defines “claim” to mean a right to 2 payment” (see 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) that the U.S. Supreme Court characterizes as “nothing more nor less 3 than an enforceable obligation.” Penna. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 559 (1990)(emphasis 4 added); Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83-84 (1991). [Szanto] must appear and show cause and explain 5 how entry of a default without the corresponding default obligation under California law sufficiently constitutes 6 a legally “enforceable obligation” as contemplated by the U.S. Supreme Court in [Davenport]. 7 8 Meanwhile, in the Riverside Action, in February 2012, Lewin 9 had been successful in setting aside the default that had been 10 entered against him; we do not have any information in the record 11 or docket why the state court did so. We know, however, that 12 Szanto immediately filed a First Amended Complaint in the 13 Riverside Action on February 27, 2012, wherein he reasserted the 14 causes of action against Lewin for tortious interference with 15 business advantage, alienation of affection, identify theft, 16 conversion, invasion of privacy, and wrongful death. 17 A default was again entered in the Riverside Action against 18 Lewin on March 29, 2012. Lewin again moved to set aside the 19 default on April 11, 2012, asserting, inter alia, that he had 20 appeared in the Riverside Action on February 24, 2012, that 21 Szanto’s proof of service of the First Amended Complaint was a 22 “lie and sham,” and that, in any case, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 739 23 provides that a default must be set aside when an attorney 24 presents a declaration that his failure to respond was a result of 25 mistake. Lewin asserts that he filed a cross-complaint in the 26 Riverside Action, but we have no information in the record 27 concerning that cross-complaint. 28 Szanto then removed the complaint and cross-complaint to the
-7- 1 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on 2 April 11, 2012, asserting jurisdiction based on diversity of 3 citizenship. Both Lewin and Szanto report that the District Court 4 remanded the Riverside Action to the state court. We have no 5 further information on the status of the Riverside Action in the 6 record or docket. 7 The bankruptcy court held a hearing on OSC 3, the order to 8 Szanto to explain why the adversary should not be dismissed, on 9 May 10, 2012. After hearing from Szanto and Lewin, who both 10 appeared without counsel, the court announced its decision on the 11 record: 12 Any creditor may file a complaint to obtain a determination of the dischargeability of debt. . . . A 13 creditor is any entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time or before the order for 14 relief. . . . The definition of claims [is] found in Section 101(5) . . . a right to payment whether or not 15 reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, 16 legal, equitable, secured or unsecured, or a right to an equitable remedy. . . . Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. 17 Davenport . . . states that a right to payment is nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation. 18 We’ve got substantial guidance from all the case law that a claim is to be defined broadly because the 19 Bankruptcy Code contemplates that all of the debtor’s legal obligations ought to be dealt with within the 20 context of the bankruptcy case. . . . [U]nder California law, does the Plaintiff have an enforceable obligation 21 against the Defendant. . . . The Plaintiff has argued . . . there is still this entry of default, and that 22 creates the right to payment that gives the Plaintiff standing in this case. I don’t agree that that’s a 23 correct statement of the law. . . . While we have an entry of default under California law, that simply 24 doesn’t establish a legally enforceable obligation. . . . So, for that reason, I am going to 25 enter an order dismissing this cause of action. 26 Hr’g Tr. 24:11–27:11, May 10, 2012. 27 The bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing the 28
-8- 1 adversary proceeding on May 15, 2012.3 Szanto filed a timely 2 appeal on May 29, 2012. 3 JURISDICTION 4 The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 5 and 157(b)(2)(A) and (I). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 6 § 158. 7 ISSUE 8 Whether the bankruptcy court erred in dismissing Szanto’s 9 adversary proceeding for lack of standing. 10 STANDARD OF REVIEW 11 A trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of an action for lack of 12 standing is reviewed de novo. Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 13 279 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 DISCUSSION 15 Rule 4007(a) provides that “a debtor or any creditor may file 16 a complaint to obtain a determination of the dischargeability of 17 any debt.” See also § 523(c) (providing that the bankruptcy court 18 may, “upon request of a creditor to whom such debt is owed” 19 determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge under 20 § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6)). Further, § 727(c)(1) provides that 21 “the trustee, a creditor, or the United States trustee may object 22 to the granting of a discharge under subsection (a) of this 23 title.” Szanto is not the debtor, trustee or United States 24 trustee in this case, and thus may only prosecute a complaint for 25 exception to discharge, or for denial of Lewin’s discharge, if he 26 27 3 Szanto filed a motion to vacate the dismissal on May 22, 2012. The bankruptcy court denied the motion in an order entered 28 on May 23, 2012.
-9- 1 is a “creditor.” 2 As it explained at the May 10, 2013 hearing on OSC 3, the 3 bankruptcy court dismissed Szanto’s complaint because he was not a 4 creditor and therefore lacked standing to pursue this action for 5 an exception to discharge. The case law instructs us that we are 6 to review sua sponte dismissals for lack of standing as if raised 7 in a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), made applicable 8 in bankruptcy adversary proceedings by Rule 7012, and that we must 9 accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw 10 all reasonable inferences in favor of Szanto. Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. 11 Agency, 673 F.3d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 Although perhaps poorly drafted, Szanto’s complaint appears 13 to seek the following relief: (1) an exception to discharge of 14 his claims raised in his state court action under § 523(a)(6); 15 (2) a denial of discharge under § 727(a) for concealment of 16 assets; and (3) denial of discharge for Lewin’s bad faith in 17 filing the bankruptcy case. Our review of the facial allegations 18 in the complaint is guided by instructions from the Supreme Court. 19 “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required. Bell Atl. 20 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). But, 21 a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is 22 plausible on its face." [Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570]. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 23 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 24 the misconduct alleged. [Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556]. 25 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).4 26 4 27 It appears that the bankruptcy court only considered Szanto’s complaint as seeking exception to discharge for his 28 (continued...)
-10- 1 A review of Szanto’s complaint shows that he pled a claim for 2 exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6) for intentional torts he 3 had asserted in a state court lawsuit (tortious interference with 4 business advantage, theft of mail, deprivation of civil rights, 5 alienation of affection, abuse of judicial process, malicious 6 prosecution, barratry, defamation, subornation of fraudulent real 7 property transfer and intentional infliction of emotional 8 distress). It is not challenged that intentional torts may form 9 the basis for an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6), yet 10 there still must be proof of willful and malicious injury. 11 Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 63 (1998).5 However, the 12 bankruptcy court did not examine the claims in the complaint for 13 their plausibility. Rather, the court based its dismissal on its 14 conclusion that Szanto lacked standing. See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. 15 v. Space Sys., 710 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that a 16 trial court may dismiss a claim under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) where a 17 complaint is not plausible because the party bringing the 18 4 19 (...continued) claims. Of course, Szanto’s complaint also contained a claim for 20 denial of discharge under § 727(a). To the extent that Szanto has presented in the complaint factual allegations that Lewin failed 21 to properly account for valuable assets, i.e., a gold Rolex watch, a gold Montblanc pen, and an undervalued stamp collection, 22 although inartfully pled, it would appear Szanto has met the minimum threshold factual presentation for facial plausibility of 23 a claim for denial of discharge. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. 24 5 At least as to one of those asserted torts, theft of mail (which we interpret to implicate the tort of conversion, an 25 intentional tort under California law), Szanto asserted in the complaint as fact known to him personally that his mail had been 26 stolen from his residence, that he had reported it to the U.S. postal inspectors, and that Lewin had returned part of it. 27 Although a weak argument, it was sufficient to meet the minimum threshold factual presentation for facial plausibility of at least 28 one claim in the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663.
-11- 1 complaint does not have standing.). 2 As it explained, the bankruptcy court’s decision was premised 3 on the interplay of several terms in the Bankruptcy Code and one 4 Supreme Court decision. The court’s reasoning, as set forth in 5 OSC 3, appears to be as follows: The Code provides that a 6 creditor is any “entity that has a claim against the debtor that 7 arose at the time of or before the order for relief.” 8 § 101(10)(A). A claim, in turn, is defined as a “right to 9 payment, whether or not reduced to judgment, liquidated, 10 unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, 11 undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured[.]” 12 § 101(5)(A). The Supreme Court has observed that a “right to 13 payment is “nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation.” 14 Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 558 (1990). 15 Since no judgment had been entered in Szanto’s favor against Lewin 16 in the Riverside Action, Lewin did not have an enforceable 17 obligation under California law to pay Szanto. Therefore, Szanto 18 is not a creditor in Lewin’s bankruptcy case and lacks standing to 19 prosecute the adversary proceeding. 20 However, the bankruptcy court’s analysis that the Supreme 21 Court in Davenport equated the “enforceable obligation” definition 22 for a claim with the entry of a judgment in favor of the creditor 23 is shaky. The cases interpreting Davenport we have located 24 instead hold that the term “enforceable obligation” refers to a 25 potentially enforceable obligation – not necessarily one reduced 26 to judgment, but rather one capable of being enforced: 27 There is no claim against a debtor's bankruptcy estate without a "right to payment," however uncertain, and a 28 claim must ultimately find some foundation in an
-12- 1 obligation that a creditor — at some point in time and under some conditions — could enforce against a debtor. 2 Such right need not be immediately enforceable at the time of filing for the right to constitute a claim. A 3 claim may be contingent or unmatured yet remain a claim for purposes of bankruptcy law. At the time of a 4 bankruptcy petition, however, there must be a right at least potentially enforceable by a creditor. 5 6 In re Spencer, 457 B.R. 601, 606 (E.D. Mich. 2011); 7 In re Schechter, Bankr. LEXIS 3796 at *13 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2012) 8 (same). 9 That the Supreme Court meant that the obligation upon which a 10 claim is founded must be enforceable at some point in time and 11 under some circumstances is evidenced by the context in Davenport. 12 Our construction of the term "debt" is guided by the fundamental canon that statutory interpretation begins 13 with the language of the statute itself. Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681, 685 (1985). 14 Section 101(11) of the Bankruptcy Code defines "debt" as a "liability on a claim." This definition reveals 15 Congress' intent that the meanings of "debt" and "claim" be coextensive. See also H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 310 16 (1977); S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 23 (1978). Thus, the meaning of "claim" is crucial to our analysis. A 17 "claim" is a "right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, 18 fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured." 19 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A). . . . As is apparent, Congress chose expansive language in both definitions relevant to 20 this case. For example, to the extent the phrase "right to payment" is modified in the statute, the modifying 21 language ("whether or not such right is . . .") reflects Congress' broad rather than restrictive view of the 22 class of obligations that qualify as a "claim" giving rise to a "debt." See also H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, 23 at 309 (describing definition of "claim" as "broadest possible" and noting that Code "contemplates that all 24 legal obligations of the debtor . . . will be able to be dealt with in the bankruptcy case"); accord, S. Rep. 25 No. 95-989, supra, at 22. 26 Davenport, 495 U.S. at 557-58. As can be seen, in Davenport, 27 the Court was explicating its long-held view that Congress meant 28 the broadest possible interpretation of “claim” in the Code, that
-13- 1 a claim need not be reduced to judgment, and that a claim could 2 include, as explicitly provided in the statute, contingent, 3 unliquidated, disputed claims — claims which by their definition 4 would not be reduced to judgment or necessarily presently 5 enforceable. 6 In the Code, “[t]he term ‘claim’ means – right to payment 7 whether or not such right is reduced to a judgment, liquidated, 8 unliquidated, fixed, contingent, mature, unmatured, disputed, 9 undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured . . . .” 10 § 101(5)(A). Obviously, Szanto’s intentional tort claims asserted 11 in state court against Lewin are disputed and unliquidated; they 12 are also contingent. A claim is "contingent" when the debtor's 13 legal duty to pay it does not come into existence until triggered 14 by the occurrence of a future event. Imagine Fulfillment Servs., 15 LLC v. DC Media Capital, LLC (In re Imagine Fulfillment Servs., 16 LLC), 489 B.R. 136, 148 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2013); Lubit v. Chase 17 (In re Chase), 372 B.R. 125, 132 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (same). 18 The Ninth Circuit has held that intentional tort claims are 19 contingent. Enqquist v. Or. Dep't of Agric., 478 F.3d 985, 1003 20 (9th Cir. 2007) (tort claims are contingent “by their nature”); 21 In re Consol. U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litig., 820 F.2d 982, 989 22 (9th Cir. 1987) (tort claims are contingent because their value is 23 inchoate until reduced to judgment). 24 Clearly, then, while Szanto did not have the benefit of a 25 state court judgment adjudging Lewin liable to him for specific 26 damages on his tort claims, they were no less “claims” for 27 purposes of the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court's apparent 28 requirement that a “right to payment” on account of an intentional
-14- 1 tort obligation requires a judgment in order to constitute an 2 enforceable obligation is inconsistent with Bankruptcy Code 3 provisions indicating a judgment is not a condition of a claim. 4 United States v. Galletti, 541 U.S. 114, 124 n.5 (2004) (citing 5 § 101(5)(A) for the proposition that a claim is allowable in 6 bankruptcy "whether or not such right is reduced to judgment.").6 7 Courts may not give effect to one provision of a statute that 8 renders another provision of that statute superfluous. New 9 Process Steel v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, 2644 (2010). In this 10 case, the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the “enforceable 11 obligation” language in Davenport is at odds with the actual text 12 of the Bankruptcy Code recognizing that Szanto may hold a claim in 13 the bankruptcy case "whether or not such right is reduced to 14 judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, 15 unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or 16 unsecured[.]" § 101(5)(A). On the basis of the allegations in 17 his complaint, Szanto was a creditor (i.e., an entity that held a 18 claim against Lewin that arose before the bankruptcy) and, as 19 such, he had standing to pursue an exception to discharge for 20 purposes of Rule 4007(a). Since Szanto was a creditor of Lewin’s 21 bankruptcy estate, he also had standing under § 727(c) to assert a 22 claim for denial of Lewin’s discharge. 23 CONCLUSION 24 Szanto is a creditor in Lewin’s bankruptcy case, and the 25 bankruptcy court therefore erred in dismissing the complaint on 26 6 It also seems inconsistent that, on the one hand, the 27 bankruptcy court would grant Szanto stay relief to pursue his state court claims against Lewin and then, later, rule that Szanto 28 was not a creditor because he held no enforceable obligation.
-15- 1 the grounds that Szanto lacked standing because he was not a 2 creditor. We therefore VACATE the bankruptcy court’s order 3 dismissing Szanto’s complaint with prejudice and REMAND this 4 matter for further proceedings.7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7 On remand, the bankruptcy court may consider a stay of this adversary proceeding pending resolution of the causes of 28 action in the state court.
-16-