Carole M. Rein Paul M. Driscoll William F. Croce Tina W. Croce and Paul Frenette v. Providian Financial Corporation

Bad Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 11855·270 F.3d 895·2001 WL 1352303·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9459·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 23842
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 5, 200199-16346California4,212 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kelleher, J.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

Appellee’s petition for rehearing filed on June 25, 2001, is hereby granted without further oral argument. Judge O’Scannlain and Judge Fletcher have voted to deny Appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Kelleher so recommends. The amended opinion is filed herewith.

OPINION

We have before us the question of whether the district court erred in dismissing appellant-debtors’ complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis that reaffirmation and settlement agreements entered into by appellant-debtors during prior bankruptcy proceedings bar their later action against the same creditor for alleged violations of the automatic stay and discharge provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

I.

Appellants Carol M. Rein, Paul M. Dris-coll, William F. Croce and Tina W. Croce, and Paul Frenette (“Rein,” “Driscoll,” “Croces,” and “Frenette,” respectively, and “Appellants,” collectively) were debtors in unrelated Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings who owed Providian Financial Corporation (“Providian”) various amounts in credit card debts (“Providian Debt”). After Appellants filed for…

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.