In re: ROBERT LEO SHEPARD; v. Glenn Conklin

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ROBERT LEO SHEPARD; et al.,
Debtors,
ROBERT LEO SHEPARD,
Appellant,
v.
GLENN CONKLIN,
Appellee.
No. 10-60016
BAP No. 09-1096
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Randall L. Dunn, Meredith A. Jury, and
Redfield T. Baum, Sr., Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-60016 2
Robert Leo Shepard, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary
judgment determining that Shepard’s debt to Glenn Conklin was nondischargeable
under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of
review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New
Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de
novo the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment. Id. We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment based on issue
preclusion because a prior, final state court decision between the parties necessarily
decided that Shepard committed “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity”
with respect to Conklin and inflicted “willful and malicious injury” on him. See 11
U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6); see also Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250
F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “[p]rinciples of collateral estoppel
apply to proceedings seeking exceptions from discharge under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a),” and setting forth issue preclusion requirements under California law).
Shepard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --