IN RE: LEONG PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. Warren C. Havens, Appellant, v. Arnold Leong; et al., Appellees.
IN RE: Leong Partnership, Debtor. Warren C. Havens, Appellant, v. Arnold Leong; et al., Appellees.
No. 18-60023, No. 18-60024
Decided: December 19, 2019
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Warren C. Havens, Berkeley, CA, pro se. Miriam Manning, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, UST - United States Trustee, Oakland, Office of the United States Trustee, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.
Warren Havens appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's summary judgment dismissing the involuntary Chapter 11 petition Havens filed against alleged debtor Leong Partnership. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy court's decision on appeal from the BAP. Eden Place, LLC v. Perl (In re Perl), 811 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016). We review the bankruptcy court's conclusions of law de novo, and we review its findings of fact a for clear error. Liberty Tool & Mfg. v. Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc. (In re Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc.), 277 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
First, Arnold Leong, an alleged partner in the Leong Partnership, was authorized under 11 U.S.C. § 303(d) to file an answer and oppose the involuntary bankruptcy petition.
Second, the bankruptcy court correctly determined that there existed a bona fide dispute as to the validity of the petitioning creditors' claims against Leong Partnership for salary and rent and for tort liability. See 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1) (petitioning creditor must hold a claim “that is not contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount”); In re Vortex, 277 F.3d at 1064 (the bankruptcy court must “determine whether there are facts that give rise to a legitimate disagreement over whether money is owed, or, in certain cases, how much”).
Appellant's motions to file a substitute or corrected reply brief (Docket Entry No. 31 in 18-60023, Docket Entry No. 27 in 18-60024) are granted.
Appellant's motion for a stay (Docket Entry No. 33 in 18-60023) is denied.
Appellant's motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 34-36 in 18-60023, Docket Entry Nos. 31-33 in 18-60024) are denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.