Thomas Van Zandt v. Wileharda Mbunda

MEMORANDUM

The facts and procedural posture of this case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. Appellant Thomas Van Zandt appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(6) claim and its entry of judgment on partial findings in Wileharda Kilian Mbunda’s (Appellee) favor on his 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2) claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, Van Zandt argues that he could have amended his § 523(a)(6) claim to allege that Mbunda violated California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30 in acquiring the $200,000 loan from Van Zandt’s former mother-in-law, Evaline Jeanne Malis. We review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, and a denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted); Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir.2008).

The BAP correctly concluded that even if Van Zandt could allege a § 15610.30 -violation, that offense is not a categorical match to § 523(a)(6) because § 523(a)(6) requires a higher mental state. Section 523(a)(6) requires a…