Carter v. Brooms (In Re Brooms), 447 B.R. 258

Creditor Carter, as assignee to a Nevada judgment against Debtor Brooms, sought to collect prepetition debt; Jorgenson assigned the Nevada judgment to Carter via a June 2008 instrument and Carter filed a California adversary proceeding.
A Settlement Agreement in the Nevada case obligated DeMaio, Brooms, and Freshican’s to pay Jorgenson, who later assigned the judgment to Carter; the state judgment was domesticated in California.
In June 2008, Jorgenson assigned the judgment to Carter and Carter filed a notice of assignment; Brooms never paid the judgment.
The bankruptcy court ordered Carter to produce the Agreement for Assignment and any documents reflecting assignment terms and to disclose consideration paid, warning of dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance.
Carter failed to provide the required documents or disclose consideration; the court entered judgment against Carter and discharged Brooms’ prepetition debt; the BAP affirmed the discharge.
The central issues concern Carter’s status as real party in interest and the propriety of sanctions for Carter’s noncompliance, which the panel upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in ordering production of the Assignment documents	Carter argues he is the real party in interest and need not disclose consideration	Brooms contends assignment documents are necessary to verify standing	No error; court properly ordered production to confirm real party in interest and avoid unauthorized practice
Whether the court abused its discretion in sanctioning Carter for noncompliance	Carter contends sanctions were improper or excessive	Brooms argues sanctions were warranted for willful noncompliance	No abuse of discretion; sanctions were permissible given repeated warnings and noncompliance

Curtin v. Kowalsky, 145 Cal. 431 (Cal. 1904) (assignment does not depend on valuable consideration)
C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (non-attorney may not represent others; appearance rules apply)
Sprint Comm’ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2008) (real-party-in-interest and assignment standing principles)
Burnett, 306 B.R. 313 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (disclosure of assignment consideration; standing issues)
United HealthCare Corp. v. American Trade Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 1996) (standing; assignee may pursue rights)
Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-step abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions)