The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-15271•In the Matter of: BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS. BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS; v. Linda Schuette
09-15271Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 22, 2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: BETSEY WARREN
LEBBOS.
BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS; et al.,
Appellants,
v.
LINDA SCHUETTE,
Appellee.
No. 09-15271
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00912-FCD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
LS/Research 2
Betsey Warren Lebbos, Thomas Carter, and Jason Gold appeal pro se from
the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s default judgment against
them as a sanction for their discovery abuses in an adversary action. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the
bankruptcy court’s decision, Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857
(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating
sanctions because appellants engaged in discovery abuses that “threaten[ed] to
interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g
Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining factors courts should
consider before imposing terminating sanctions) (citation omitted); Visioneering
Constr. & Dev. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. (In re Visioneering Constr.), 661 F.2d
119, 123 (9th Cir. 1981) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the imposition of
terminating sanctions by a bankruptcy court).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
Lebbos’s request for judicial notice is granted. George Alonso’s request for
judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.