Battram

Battram v. Battram

Good Law
31 F. App'x 488
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 5, 2002No. 00-57159; D.C. No. CV-00-07429-ABCCalifornia794 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Kenneth Battram (“Kenneth”) appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the granting of summary judgment by the bankruptcy court in favor of defendants Lois Battram and B & B Acquisitions LLC (collectively “B & B”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We affirm.

We review de novo the judgment of the district court affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court. Neilson v. Chang (In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc.), 253 F.3d 520, 526 (9th Cir.2001). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law. Id.

I

Kenneth argues that B & B’s acquiescence to treating the alleged discount on the promissory note as separate from the Playa Pacifica II, Ltd. (“Playa”) bankruptcy estate bars B & B from arguing that his claims in this action are res judicata by Playa’s confirmed Chapter 11 reorganization plan. We disagree.

The doctrine of acquiescence may bar a party from raising res judicata as a defense against a claim where the party assented to simultaneous prosecutions of a single claim or the splitting of one claim into two separately prosecuted claims. Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 862 (9th Cir.1995). The case on which Kenneth…

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.