Scheer v. State Bar of California

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARILYN S. SCHEER No. 24-2099 BAP No. 23-1159 Debtor

---------------------------------- MEMORANDUM* MARILYN SUE SCHEER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, a public corporation,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Scott H. Gan, Frederick Philip Corbit, and Robert J. Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

* 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). Scheer’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtor Marilyn Sue Scheer, a California attorney suspended from

the practice of law, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)

judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing for failure to state a

claim Scheer’s adversary complaint against the State Bar of California. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d)(1). We review de novo a decision of the BAP

and apply the same standard of review the BAP applied to the underlying

bankruptcy court decision. In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2021).

We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Scheer’s adversary complaint

because Scheer failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the State Bar violated

the discharge injunction or engaged in bankruptcy discrimination against her. See

11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), § 525(a); Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554, 557 (2019)

(holding that “a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a

discharge order [under § 524(a)(2)] if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether

the order barred the creditor’s conduct”); Albert-Sheridan v. State Bar of Cal. (In

re Albert-Sheridan), 960 F.3d 1188, 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that

“the costs of State Bar attorney disciplinary proceedings are non-dischargeable”

and that, as to bankruptcy discrimination, “the State Bar is within its right to

condition reinstatement [of a law license] on the payment of [nondischargeable]

2 24-2099 debt”).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2099