Summary
affirming bankruptcy court's entry of final decree and noting that a final decree could have properly been entered even if an appeal and adversary proceeding had still been pending because "not all of the factors set forth in the Advisory Committee Note need to be present to establish that a case is fully administered for final decree purposes"
Summary of this case from In re Valence Tech., Inc.Opinion
No. 10-60045 BAP No. 10-1135
01-17-2012
In re: PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC., Debtor, GREGORY P. NESSELRODE, Appellant, v. PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC., Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Pappas, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gregory P. Nesselrode appeals pro se from the the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing his adversary proceeding as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP's and the bankruptcy court's decisions, Arrow Elecs., Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly concluded that res judicata barred Nesselrode from relitigating claims in connection with Provident Financial's foreclosure of his property because he had asserted claims arising from the same transactional nucleus of facts in prior federal and state court actions. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982) (res judicata bars all claims based on the same "transactional nucleus of facts" which "could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Stanley L. and Carolyn M. Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 92 P.3d 620, 626 (Mont. 2004) (barring all claims where "the issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter").
Nesselrode's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.