19-09006
Bankr. E.D. Cal.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Nathan Benjamin Damigo, based on his participation in a violent conspiracy at the 2017 Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally.
- Plaintiffs sought to have the approximately $3.1 million judgment declared nondischargeable in Damigo's subsequent bankruptcy, arguing the debt resulted from willful and malicious conduct under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
- Damigo filed a counter-motion for summary judgment, contending the conduct at issue was not directly his and arguing for dischargeability.
- The court needed to determine if collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) applied from the prior district court judgment and if the damages resulted from willful and malicious injury by Damigo.
- Dispute arose regarding whether punitive damages and certain "Reimbursable Expenses" were dischargeable.
- The court ultimately granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on Count I (nondischargeability for willful and malicious injury) and Defendant summary judgment on Count II (Reimbursable Expenses as post-petition claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) | Damigo's conspiracy participation was willful/malicious injury | Conspiracy liability is vicarious/not direct, so not nondischargeable | For Plaintiffs: Damigo's direct participation/conspiracy met § 523(a)(6) |
| Application of collateral estoppel from Charlottesville case | All relevant facts were actually litigated; issue preclusion applies | Key elements (willful/malicious injury) not clearly decided; no estoppel | For Plaintiffs: Issue preclusion applies; relitigation not permitted |
| Dischargeability of punitive damages | Punitive damages arose from same willful/malicious conduct | Punitive damages may have been awarded on recklessness, which is dischargeable | For Plaintiffs: Standard exceeded recklessness; punitive also excepted |
| Reimbursable Expenses: Pre- or post-petition claim | Expenses incurred post-petition—not dischargeable | Contingent claim arose pre-petition; therefore discharged | For Defendant: They are part of pre-petition claim, thus dischargeable under Count II |
Key Cases Cited
- Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court clarified § 523(a)(6) covers debts from deliberate or intentional injury, not negligent/reckless conduct)
- Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (Establishes that collateral estoppel applies in bankruptcy nondischargeability proceedings)
- Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. (In re Ormsby), 591 F.3d 1199 (Ninth Circuit further on what constitutes willful and malicious injury)
- Carrillo v. Su (In re Su), 290 F.3d 1140 (Ninth Circuit: willful injury standard is subjective intent to injure or belief harm was substantially certain to occur)
- Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (Nondischargeability of all debts resulting from a willful and malicious act, including punitive damages)