John Roberts v. Esther Andrews

Good Law
668 F. App'x 757
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 1, 201614-60047; BAP 13-1385; 14-60048; BAP 13-1403California293 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellants John Roberts (Trustee) and Dana Andrews (Debtor) appeal a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment for Appellee Andrews Family Revocable Trust, et al., pursuant to the application of California preclusion law.

On appeal, we review de novo. Grenning v. Miller-Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not recite them here.

Appellants assert that Debtor did not discover the alleged forgery in the power of attorney or the Restated Trust Agreement until after the Trust Contest Judgment had been entered. They argue that the “newly discovered facts” exception to claim preclusion applies under Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 150 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 (2005). In Allied, the court held that “[r]es judica-ta is not a bar to claims that arise after the initial complaint is filed.” Id. at 199 . However, “a plaintiff will be precluded from raising these facts later if, by exercising due diligence, he or she could have discovered the relevant information before filing the initial suit.” Id. at…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.