In re: Dane S. Field v. Bank of America, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ROLANDO MANGSAT TIRSO; No. 22-16291 KAMEHALYN SANTOS TIRSO,

D.C. No. Debtors. 1:22-cv-00075-JMS-WRP ______________________________

DANE S. FIELD, Chapter 7 Trustee, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 11, 2024** Submission Vacated and Deferred June 11, 2024 Resubmitted July 15, 2024

Honolulu, Hawai‘i

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Before: CALLAHAN and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.*** Dane S. Field, the bankruptcy trustee in a Chapter 7 proceeding for Kamehalyn Santos Tirso and Rolando Mangsat Tirso, appeals a summary judgment in favor of Bank of America, North America (BANA) in an adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment on appeal from a bankruptcy court. Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

We apply the Erie doctrine when sitting in bankruptcy jurisdiction involving state-law claims, see In re Larry’s Apartments, L.L.C., 249 F.3d 832, 837–38 (9th Cir. 2001), and are “bound by decisions of the state’s highest court” on matters of substantive law, PSM Holding Corp. v. Nat’l Farm Fin. Corp., 884 F.3d 812, 820 (9th Cir. 2018), including the calculation of damages for improper foreclosure, see In re Kekauoha-Alisa, 674 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 2012). Under Hawai‘i Supreme Court precedent, the district court and bankruptcy court correctly determined that the Tirsos failed to show damages stemming from BANA’s foreclosure on their property. Llanes v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3064621, at *8–11 (Haw. June 20, 2024); see also Wong v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Harbor Square, 545 P.3d 547, 554 (Haw. 2024).

***

This case was decided by quorum of the panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2(h).

AFFIRMED.