United States District Court, C.D. California
OPINION ON APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT
ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is an appeal filed by Antionette Thomas Love
(“Appellant”). In the course of her chapter 13
bankruptcy, Appellant initiated an adversary proceeding
against appellee Pacifica Seacove LP
(“Pacifica”). Appellant now challenges the
decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the adversary
proceeding with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds
that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral
October 25, 2012, Pacifica purchased a single family
residence located at 9617 South 2nd Avenue,
Inglewood, California 90305 (the “Property”) at a
trustee's sale. (Appellant's Excerpts of Record
(“AER”) at 195.) Pacifica received a
Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, which it recorded on November
30, 2012. (Id. at 205-207.)
December 12, 2012, Pacifica filed an unlawful detainer action
against Appellant and others residing at the Property,
Pacifica Seacove LP v. Marlon Anthony et al., Case
No. 12L02956. (Id. at 200-202.) Prior to filing the
unlawful detainer complaint, Pacifica served all occupants of
the Property with a notice to quit pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure § 1161. (Id. at 196.)
On August 6, 2013, a default judgment was entered in favor of
Pacifica. (Id. at 248.)
September 3, 2013, Appellant filed a voluntary Chapter 13
bankruptcy petition. (Id. at 1.) A week later, on
September 10, 2013, Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies
executed a writ of possession against Appellant and others
residing at the Property. (Id. at 37.) Appellant
filed an adversary proceeding against Pacifica on September
12, 2013, contending that Pacifica had willfully violated the
bankruptcy court's automatic stay by directing sheriffs
deputies to execute the writ of possession despite
Appellant's bankruptcy proceeding. (Id. at
filed a motion for summary judgment in the adversary
proceeding on June 17, 2014. (Id. at 56-183.) The
Bankruptcy Court granted the motion, concluding that
Appellant's post-petition eviction was a wilful violation
of the automatic stay. (Id. at 285-294.) In so
concluding, the Bankruptcy Court relied heavily on a
“strikingly similar” case, In re Perl,
513 B.R. 566, 575 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2014). (See id.
at 290-91.) However, after the Bankruptcy Court granted
Appellant's motion for summary judgment, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's
decision in In re Perl. See In re Perl, 811
F.3d 1120, 1123 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Perl v.
Eden Place, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 39, 196 L.Ed.2d 27 (2016). In
doing so, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that after an unlawful
detainer judgment is entered against an occupying resident,
the resident has neither a legal nor equitable interest in
the property which is protectable under an automatic
bankruptcy stay. See id. at 1130.
Bankruptcy Court then issued an Order to Show Cause why
Appellant's adversary proceeding should not be dismissed
in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re
Perl. (AER at 325-326.) After holding a hearing on the
Order to Show Cause and considering briefing from the
parties, the Bankruptcy Court reversed its prior
determination and concluded that the automatic stay was not
violated, and therefore dismissed the adversary proceeding.
(Id. at 339-40, 383-85.)
before the Court is Appellant's appeal of the Bankruptcy
Court's order dismissing the adversary proceeding.
Court possesses appellate jurisdiction over a Bankruptcy
Court's final order dismissing an adversary proceeding
with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a); In
re SK Foods, L.P., 676 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2012).
Standard of Review
the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) have
been violated is a question of law reviewed de novo.”
In re Mwangi, 764 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Bankruptcy Court's decision may be affirmed on any
ground finding support in the record. In re Frontier
Properties, Inc., 979 F.2d 1358, 1364 (9th Cir. 1992).
Bankruptcy Court's legal conclusions are reviewed de
novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
Greene v. Savage, 583 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2009).
“A court's factual determination is clearly
erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without ...