PW Enterprises, Inc. v. Susan Bala ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-2488
___________________________
In re: Racing Services, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor
------------------------------
PW Enterprises, Inc., Creditor Committee
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant
Robert Carlson, Creditor
v.
Susan Bala, Intervenor
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee
Kip M. Kaler,
lllllllllllllllllllllTrustee - Appellee
___________________________
No. 20-2498
___________________________
In re: Racing Services, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor
------------------------------
PW Enterprises, Inc. Creditor Committee
Robert Carlson, Creditor
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant
v.
Susan Bala, Intervenor
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee
Kip M. Kaler
lllllllllllllllllllllTrustee - Appellee
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 13, 2021
Filed: August 3, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
-2-
PW Enterprises, Inc. (PWE) and Robert Carlson appeal the district court’s1
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying (1) PWE’s amended claim for
$10,851,553.12 in unauthorized taxes assessed on PWE’s account wagering through
the debtor, Racing Services, Inc. (RSI), and (2) Carlson’s claim for $380,848.44 in
unauthorized taxes assessed on his account wagering through RSI. PWE and Carlson
continue to argue, as they did before the district court,
that the [b]ankruptcy [c]ourt committed a number of legal and factual
errors in concluding that (1) they failed to show that they were entitled
to the money under their respective oral rebating agreements with RSI
and (2) they failed to show that RSI would be unjustly enriched if it got
to retain the money instead of returning it to them.
In re Racing Servs., Inc., 617 B.R. 641, 644–45 (D.N.D. 2020).
Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
find no basis for reversal. See In re Luebbert, 987 F.3d 771, 778 (8th Cir. 2021)
(explaining that “we review only the underlying bankruptcy court decision” “[w]hen
a bankruptcy court’s decision is appealed to the district court and then appealed
again” and that our review of that decision is de novo for legal conclusions and clear
error for factual determinations). We affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court for
the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion. See 8th
Cir. Rule 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota, affirming the order of the Honorable Thad J. Collins,
Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for Northern District of Iowa, sitting by
designation in the District of North Dakota.
-3-