Pluma v. Tax Collector for the County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Outcome
- other — 2003), reversing the judgment of the bankruptcy court,
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LAURA FREDRIKA PLUMA, Debtor, No. 04-55107 LAURA FREDRIKA PLUMA, BAP No. Appellant, SC-03-01098- v. BaRyMa TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE OPINION COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Marlar, Ryan, and Baum, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 21, 2005—Pasadena, California Filed October 31, 2005 Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges, and Milton I. Shadur,* Senior District Judge.
Per Curiam Opinion *The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
14879 14880 IN RE: PLUMA
COUNSEL
Brian M. Mahoney, American Debt Relief, San Diego, Cali- fornia, for the appellant.
Timothy M. Barry, Senior Deputy County Counsel, San Diego, California, for the appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”), Tax Collector v. Pluma (In re Pluma), 303 B.R. 444 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003), reversing the judgment of the bankruptcy court, see In re Pluma, 289 B.R. 151 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2003).1 We affirm the judgment of the BAP for the reasons stated in its opinion, 303 B.R. 444, supra, and remand to the bankruptcy court for further pro- ceedings.
AFFIRMED.
1 We deny appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.