Partida v. United States Department of Justice
862 F.3d 909
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Debtor Deborah Partida was ordered in 2002 to pay $193,337.33 in criminal restitution for embezzlement and later defaulted.
- Partida filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in March 2013 and listed the restitution debt among her liabilities.
- After the bankruptcy filing, the government notified Partida it would and did offset her income to satisfy the restitution balance.
- Partida moved in bankruptcy court to hold the government in contempt for violating the automatic stay; the bankruptcy court denied relief.
- The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, holding the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) permits collection despite the automatic stay; Partida appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and affirmed the BAP: the MVRA’s “notwithstanding any other Federal law” clause allows post‑judgment collection of restitution despite § 362’s automatic stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay bars the government from collecting criminal restitution post‑petition | Partida: MVRA’s "notwithstanding" clause applies only to substantive laws about what property is collectible, not to procedural limits like the automatic stay | Government: MVRA’s broad "notwithstanding any other Federal law" language (and its purpose) permits collection despite the automatic stay | MVRA overrides the automatic stay; government collection is permitted |
| Whether the criminal‑proceeding exception to § 362(b)(1) controls | Partida: enforcement is civil and thus subject to stay | Government: MVRA expressly preserves post‑judgment collection; alternatively, criminal‑proceeding exception could apply | Court did not rely on § 362(b)(1) exception here but noted other circuits’ reasoning; primary basis is MVRA’s supremacy |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Robinson, 764 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) (MVRA’s "notwithstanding" clause overrides automatic stay)
- United States v. Colasuonno, 697 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2012) (criminal‑proceeding exception to the automatic stay can encompass restitution enforcement for ongoing criminal proceedings)
- United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining broad effect of statutory "notwithstanding" clauses)