Opinion of the Court — Murphy v. Amusement Industry, Inc.

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: March 19, 2003
Case: Murphy v. Amusement Industry, Inc.
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Murphy appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel order affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision to impose sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9011. We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision. Atlanta Corp. v. Allen (In re Allen), 300 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision. 1. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to consider sanctions after the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy petition. Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 393—396, 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (court retains jurisdiction to consider ancillary matters, such as sanctions, after the underlying case has been finalized); see also Pavelich v. McCormick (In re Pavelich), 229 B.R. 777, 781 (9th Cir.BAP1999). 2. The sanction award did not violate the “safe harbor” provision of Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9011, because that provision does not apply to sanctions imposed on account of an improperly filed bankruptcy petition. 3. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that sanctions were appropriate. Cooter Gell, 496 U.S. at 405 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 (decision to i…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.