United States v. 2020-04-16 | 17-36010 | MARY DUFFIE V. STEVE GOTCHER | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARY KAY DUFFIE,

Debtor,
______________________________

MARY KAY DUFFIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STEVE GOTCHER; SHARON GOTCHER,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-36010

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00034-BMM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Mary Kay Duffiè appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s judgment excepting $88,348.61 for appellees from Duffiè’s

*
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).
FILED

APR 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-36010
bankruptcy discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and
1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy
court and apply the same standard of review applied by the district court. In re JTS
Corp., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly granted appellees an exception from Duffiè’s
bankruptcy discharge because appellees demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that Duffiè intentionally made false representations to obtain their
agreement to make monetary payments to Duffiè; the appellees justifiably relied on
those misrepresentations and made such payments; and they sustained damages as
a result. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (prohibiting the discharge of any
enforceable obligation for money, property, services, or credit that was obtained by
fraud, false pretenses, or false representations); In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1221
(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing the five elements a creditor must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate a claim of non-dischargeability
under § 523(a)(2)(A)).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying on the basis of
appellee Steve Gotcher’s demonstrated hearing issues Duffiè’s motion to appear at
trial via videoconference. See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th
Cir.) (stating standard of review and holding that courts have “inherent power” to
control their dockets).

3 17-36010
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Duffiè’s motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 23) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.