George v. City of Morro Bay (In re George)
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re: Kevin Wasko and Cassondra Dehay (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2013)
- Sunergy California LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California 2022)
- Javier Lopez (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico 2022)
- In re: Enrique V. Greenberg (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
- Houng v. Tatung Co. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2013)
- In re: Anthony A. Malfatti (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2012)
- In re Siller (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California 2010)
- In re Hathaway (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington 2009)
- Lopez v. Emergency Service Restoration, Inc. (In re Lopez) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2007)
- Alonso v. Summerville (In re Summerville) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2007)
- Hansen v. Moore (In re Hansen) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2007)
- Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2006)
- Cogliano v. Anderson (In re Cogliano) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
James and Margie George (“Georges”) appeal pro se a decision by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their action against the City of Morro Bay (“City”). The BAP ruled the Georges’ action was barred by claim preclusion. See George v. City of Morro Bay, 318 B.R. 729, 738-39 (9th Cir.BAP 2004). We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Claim preclusion prevents the relitigation of claims previously tried and decided. Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 919-20 (9th Cir. 2003). It also bars claims that could have been asserted in a previous action between the same parties in the same cause of action, even if such claims were not raised. Id. at 920. The record indicates the Georges have litigated at least twice with the City regarding the surrender of their lease under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4). See George v. City of Morro Bay, 177 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1999) (George I); George v. City of Morro Bay, 322 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2003) (George II). We agree with the BAP that the Georges’ new theory — that surrender of their lease violated 11 U.S.C. § 525 — could have been raised in a prior proceeding. We do not agree with the Georges that the bankruptcy court did not rely on claim preclusion or that the City should be estopped from asserting the defense.
Finally, we address the City’s request that we impose sanctions upon the Georges for bringing a frivolous appeal. There is no question we are empowered to do so. See Ingle v. Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2005) (awarding double costs and attorneys fees). Indeed, we previously imposed sanctions in George II, 322 F.3d at 591-92. Although the Georges’ arguments in this appeal are without merit, we decline to impose sanctions. See Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting “an appeal that lacks merit is not always frivolous”); see
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.