Peggy Kirton v. Valley Health System

Ninth Circuit

Peggy Kirton v. Valley Health System

697 F. App'x 522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

Docket15-60023

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 F. App'x 522 (Peggy Kirton v. Valley Health System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peggy Kirton v. Valley Health System, 697 F. App'x 522 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Peggy Kirton and Diana Agnello are former employees of the Debtor, Valley Health System (“VHS”). They appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s February 25, 2015 decision affirming dismissal of their petition. Our review is de novo. See In re Tracht Gut LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016).

As former VHS employees, Kirton and Agnello are participants in the VHS Retirement Plan. After VHS declared bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court established the proof of claims bar date as August 25, 2008. The court then confirmed an adjustment plan on April 26, 2010 limiting participants such as Kirton and Agnello to the monies already in the Retirement Plan. Kirton and Agnello, who at all times had proper notice, neither filed a proof of claim by the claims bar date nor objected to the adjustment plan.

A creditor may not contest a plan if the creditor failed to object to the plan’s proposal or confirmation. See Miller v. United States, 363 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004). Kirton and Agnello’s petition clearly asserts pre-petition claims, which are precluded by the claims bar date and discharged by the adjustment plan. Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing their petition.

Courts should “freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), 1 but should deny leave where the amendment would be futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). A motion to amend should be denied if it is clear the amended pleading would not rectify the failure to state a claim. See Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651, 656 (9th Cir. 1985). In light of the foregoing, the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing Kirton and Agnello’s petition without leave to amend.

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Appellants shall bear the costs .of appeal. The order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015 ("Rule 15 F.R.Civ.P. applies in adversary proceedings.”).

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Peggy Kirton and Diana Agnello are former employees of the Debtor, Valley Health System (“VHS”). They appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s February 25, 2015 decision affirming dismissal of their petition. Our review is de novo. See In re Tracht Gut LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016).

As former VHS employees, Kirton and Agnello are participants in the VHS Retirement Plan. After VHS declared bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court established the proof of claims bar date as August 25, 2008. The court then confirmed an adjustment plan on April 26, 2010 limiting participants such as Kirton and Agnello to the monies already in the Retirement Plan. Kirton and Agnello, who at all times had proper notice, neither filed a proof of claim by the claims bar date nor objected to the adjustment plan.

A creditor may not contest a plan if the creditor failed to object to the plan’s proposal or confirmation. See Miller v. United States, 363 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004). Kirton and Agnello’s petition clearly asserts pre-petition claims, which are precluded by the claims bar date and discharged by the adjustment plan. Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing their petition.

Courts should “freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), 1 but should deny leave where the amendment would be futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). A motion to amend should be denied if it is clear the amended pleading would not rectify the failure to state a claim. See Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651, 656 (9th Cir. 1985). In light of the foregoing, the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing Kirton and Agnello’s petition without leave to amend.

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Appellants shall bear the costs .of appeal. The order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015 ("Rule 15 F.R.Civ.P. applies in adversary proceedings.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 F. App'x 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peggy-kirton-v-valley-health-system-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack