In Re David Lee Carraher and Phyllis Diane Carraher, Debtors. David L. Carraher Phyllis D. Carraher, and Ronald C. Lapekas v. Morgan Electronics, Inc.

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 10415·971 F.2d 327·1992 WL 174382·23 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 384·27 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 358
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 199291-15638California824 words

Opinion

Opinion

The bankruptcy court dismissed the Car-rahers’ bankruptcy case, but retained jurisdiction over the Carrahers’ related fraud case against defendants. The court ruled that res judicata barred the fraud claims. The district court affirmed.

The questions on appeal are three: (1) Does dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case automatically divest the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over related cases, such as the Carrahers’ fraud case? (2) If not, what factors . must the bankruptcy court considér in deciding whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over such cases? (3) Was the award of Rule 11 sanctions against Carrahers’ counsel appropriate?

DISCUSSION

The Garrahers’ fraud case was originally filed in state court, but was then removed to bankruptcy court as a related case because of the pendency of the bankruptcy case. It might make sense, therefore, to conclude that jurisdiction over the fraud case ceased when the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed. But Congress has not so defined bankruptcy jurisdiction: Section 349 of the Bankruptcy Code lists the various effects of dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case; conspicuously absent from that list is automatic…

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.