Negrette v. Pham

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-1053
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICK NEGRETTE, No. 24-1053 D.C. No. 5:23-cv-01732-RGK Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* PHU V. PHAM; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Rick Negrette appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the

bankruptcy court order imposing fines and damages under 11 U.S.C. § 110. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo a district

* 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). court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and apply the same standards

of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe

Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012).

We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly found that Negrette was a bankruptcy petition

preparer (“BPP”) within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 110(a)(1) and that he had

failed to comply with § 110’s disclosure requirements and practice prohibitions for

BPPs. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(a)(1), (2) (defining a BPP as “a person, other than an

attorney for the debtor or an employee of such attorney under the direct

supervision of such attorney, who prepares for compensation” a “petition or any

other document prepared for filing by a debtor in a United States bankruptcy

court . . . in connection with a case under this title”); 110(b)(1) (requiring BPPs to

sign and print their name and address on documents for filing); 110(c)(1), (c)(2)(A)

(requiring BPPs to provide their Social Security account number on documents for

filing); 110(f) (prohibiting BPPs from using the word “legal” in advertisements);

110(g) (prohibiting BPPs from collecting or receiving payment from the debtor for

court fees in connection with filing a bankruptcy petition); Frankfort Digit. Servs.

v. Kistler (In re Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth

standard of review).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum

2 24-1053 penalty allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 110(l) for Negrette’s violations of § 110’s

disclosure requirements and practice prohibitions. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(l)(1)

(providing that a BPP “who fails to comply with any provision of [11 U.S.C.

§ 110] subsection (b), (c), . . . (f) [or] (g) . . . may be fined not more than $500 for

each such failure”); 110(l)(2)(D) (providing that “[t]he court shall triple the amount

of a fine assessed under [11 U.S.C. § 110(l)(1)] in any case in which the court finds

that a bankruptcy petition preparer . . . prepared a document for filing in a manner

that failed to disclose the identity of the bankruptcy petition preparer”); Frankfort

Digit. Servs., Ltd. v. Neary (In re Reynoso), 315 B.R. 544, 550 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

2004), aff’d, 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1053