In re: FRANK LANE ITALIANE, Jr.; ALICIA ITALIANE v. Jeffrey Catanzarite Family Limited Partnership;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: FRANK LANE ITALIANE, Jr.;
ALICIA ITALIANE,
Debtors,
------------------------------
FRANK LANE ITALIANE, Jr.,
Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY CATANZARITE FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 21-60054
BAP No. 20-1247
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Gan, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
* 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
DEC 5 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Frank Lane Italiane, Jr. (Lane) appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel for the Ninth Circuit (BAP), which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s summary
judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review a
bankruptcy court’s rulings de novo with no deference to the BAP. See In re
Candland, 90 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1996). We review a bankruptcy court’s
grant of summary judgment de novo. See In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1221–22
(9th Cir. 2010). Finally, we review the availability of issue preclusion de novo and
the bankruptcy court’s application of issue preclusion for abuse of discretion. See
Dias v. Elique, 436 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
First, the bankruptcy court correctly held that issue preclusion was available
to the California state-court stipulated judgment. Whether a state-court judgment
is to be granted preclusive effect in a later bankruptcy proceeding is “determined
by the preclusion law of the state in which the judgment was issued.” In re
Harmon, 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Lucido v. Super. Ct., 51
Cal. 3d 335, 341 (1990). Under California law, a stipulated judgment entered
under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6 “may properly be given collateral estoppel
effect, at least when the parties manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by its
terms.” Cal. State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Super. Ct., 50 Cal. 3d 658, 664
& n.2 (1990). Here, as the parties’ settlement agreement and stipulated judgment
plainly agreed to a judgment for fraudulent concealment and agreed that the debt

-- 2 of 3 --

3
would be nondischargeable in Lane’s bankruptcy proceeding, issue preclusion was
appropriate.
Second, the bankruptcy court correctly held that issue preclusion was
available to the state court’s determination that Lane did not lack mental capacity
when he entered into the settlement agreement. Relevant here, Lane’s mental
capacity was “actually litigated” in state court, as Lane had an “opportunity for a
full presentation of the issue.” Jackson v. Yarbray, 179 Cal. App. 4th 75, 95
(2009), discussing Groves v. Peterson, 100 Cal. App. 4th 659, 667–68 (2002).
Last, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in its application of
issue preclusion. Once courts have found that issue preclusion is available, courts
may only apply issue preclusion if application would “further[] the public policies
underlying the doctrine,” namely, “preservation of the integrity of the judicial
system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from
harassment by vexatious litigation[.]” In re Harmon, 250 F.3d at 1245; Lucido, 51
Cal. 3d at 343. Lane does not point to any recognized public policies that weigh
against the application of issue preclusion here.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --