In Re: Szanto
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an appeal from the bankruptcy court's dismissal of Peter Szanto's bankruptcy case for improper venue. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the bankruptcy court correctly applied the legal standards and made no factual errors.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Affirm the bankruptcy court's order dismissing the bankruptcy case for improper venue.“Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court's order and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.” | de novo | agree with court The district court correctly applied the standard of review for appeals from bankruptcy courts, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The order states that the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1408 and that the appellant identified no errors in the factual findings or legal conclusions. Given the deference owed to the bankruptcy court's factual findings and the absence of identified legal error, the affirmance follows from the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and correctly identifies the applicable standards of review from binding Ninth Circuit precedent. It relies on the bankruptcy court's detailed findings and the appellant's failure to identify specific errors. However, it is a summary affirmance that does not independently analyze the specific venue prongs (domicile, residence, etc.) in detail, relying instead on the bankruptcy court's record. While defensible, it skips a detailed independent legal analysis of the venue facts, making it 'sound with gaps' rather than fully robust, though the result is clearly supported by the cited standards and the lack of identified error.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Peter Szanto, Case No.: 22cv1142-JO-BGS 12 Debtor-Appellant, ORDER AFFIRMING 13 v. BANKRUPTCY COURT’S DISMISSAL FOR IMPROPER 14 Chase Bank, VENUE 15 Creditor-Appellee. 16 17 Debtor-Appellant Peter Szanto filed this action appealing the bankruptcy court’s 18 order dismissing his bankruptcy case, In re Peter Szanto, Case No. 22-01558-CL11 (Bankr. 19 S.D. Cal.), for improper venue. Dkt. 1 (Notice of Appeal); Dkt. 10 (Appellant’s Opening 20 Brief), Ex. A. For the following reasons, the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order. 21 On July 22, 2022, the bankruptcy court issued a fifteen-page written decision 22 dismissing Szanto’s bankruptcy case for improper venue. Dkt. 10, Ex. A. The order set 23 forth in detail the bankruptcy court’s factual and legal findings that Szanto failed to 24 establish venue under any of 28 U.S.C § 1408’s prongs, including domicile, residence, 25 principal place of business, or location of principal U.S. assets. Id. On August 3, 2022, 26 Szanto filed a notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order to this Court. Dkt. 1. 27 District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and 28 decrees of bankruptcy judges. 28 U.S.C. § 158. “The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact 1 reviewed for clear error, while its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Jn re 2 || Strand, 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Galam v. Carmel (In re Larry's Apt., 3 L.L.C), 249 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also In re Greene, 583 F.3d 614, 618 (9th 4 || Cir. 2009) (district courts and circuit courts apply the same standard of review in reviewing 5 || bankruptcy court decisions). The court must accept the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact 6 ||unless “the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 7 \}committed.” Greene, 583 F.3d at 618. 8 Upon reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court 9 || applied the correct legal standards for determining proper venue and committed no error in 10 findings of fact. The bankruptcy court correctly applied each prong of the 28 U.S.C. § 11 || 1408 analysis to determine venue. Dkt. 10, Ex. A (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1408; Fed. R. Bankr. 12 1014(a)(2); In re Donald, 328 B.R. 192, 199 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005)). It also set forth 13 extensive factual findings based on the record supporting its conclusion that Szanto failed 14 || to meet the standards for proper venue. Szanto identifies no errors in the bankruptcy court’s 15 || factual findings or its legal conclusions and this Court has not discovered any in its review. 16 || Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court’s order and DIRECTS the Clerk 17 || to close the case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 15, 2023 20 71 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28