Delfino v. Cameron Moore , 346 F. App'x 321 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 21, 2009
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
In re:
CAMERON A. MOORE,
Debtor.
No. 09-1087
(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00868-MSK)
MICHELANGELO DELFINO; (D. Colo.)
MARY E. DAY,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CAMERON A. MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN, PORFILIO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Cameron A. Moore, defendant in this adversary proceeding, appeals the
district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
judgment to plaintiffs, Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day. 1 Because
Mr. Moore was found liable to plaintiffs in a California state civil proceeding for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, the bankruptcy court held that
Mr. Moore was collaterally estopped from relitigating whether his debt to
plaintiffs was the result of a willful and malicious injury and thus
non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The district court, in a thorough
and well-reasoned oral ruling, affirmed. Mr. Moore appeals, arguing the district
court erred because it “ignored disputed issues of material fact” and applied
collateral estoppel to what he characterizes as the California state court’s “default
judgment,” that “was not based on express findings[.]” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. “We review
the grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same legal standards as
those applied by the bankruptcy and district courts, i.e., those set forth in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).” Hollytex Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Okla. Employment Sec.
Comm’n (In re Hollytex Carpet Mills, Inc.), 73 F.3d 1516, 1518 (10th Cir. 1996).
The bankruptcy and district courts provided detailed summaries of the facts
and procedural history involved in this case, and we need not restate either here.
Having reviewed the briefs and appendix in light of applicable law and appellate
1
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a suggestion of death with this court advising that
Mr. Delfino passed away on March 23, 2009. Since then, counsel notified the
court that an estate has been opened, but that a personal representative has not yet
been appointed.
-2-
standards, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case.
Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set out in the district court’s oral
ruling of January 28, 2009, the judgment of the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-