Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh)

Ninth Circuit

Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh)

506 F.3d 956, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25987, 2007 WL 3287845

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 8, 2007·No. No. 06-55361·Published·Cited by 51 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Shahzad Khaligh appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s determination that Fred Hadaegh’s award of damages obtained against her was not dischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). She argues that mutual collateral estoppel is not available in California when the prior determination was made in a confirmed arbitration award decision.

We disagree and, therefore, affirm for the reasons cogently set forth in the majority opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. See Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh), 338 B.R. 817 (9th Cir.BAP 2006).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Shahzad Khaligh appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s determination that Fred Hadaegh’s award of damages obtained against her was not dischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). She argues that mutual collateral estoppel is not available in California when the prior determination was made in a confirmed arbitration award decision.

We disagree and, therefore, affirm for the reasons cogently set forth in the majority opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. See Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh), 338 B.R. 817 (9th Cir.BAP 2006).

AFFIRMED.

Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh), 506 F.3d 956, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25987, 2007 WL 3287845 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

506 F.3d 956 (Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related