Janossy v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

Type

Opinion of the Court

Filed

March 13, 2003

Case

Janossy v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

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.

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

MEMORANDUM ** Paul and Hajnal Janossy appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that General Motors unlawfully repossessed their vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Berry v. Valence Tech., Inc., 175 F.3d 699 , 706 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Janossys’ claim that General Motors violated the bankruptcy code because, contrary to the Janossys’ allegations, the hen against their leased vehicle was not discharged in their bankruptcy proceeding. See Newman v. First Sec. Bank of Boze-man, 887 F.2d 973, 976 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that debtor’s discharge from bankruptcy does not waive or affect any lien on property in existence prior to bankruptcy adjudication). The district court properly dismissed the Janossys’ due process claim because they received notice and a hearing prior to the repossession. See Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that due process requires notice and hearing prior to deprivation of significant property interest). The district cour…

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