Yan Sui v. Richard Marshack
691 F. App'x 377
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang (pro se) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law in connection with Sui’s bankruptcy proceedings; appeal from district court’s dismissal.
- District court dismissed federal claims against the chapter 7 trustee, Wells Fargo, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; denied default judgment against the United States Trustee and denied leave to amend as futile.
- Plaintiffs did not obtain leave from the bankruptcy court before suing the chapter 7 trustee.
- Plaintiffs failed to argue on appeal the district court’s dismissal of federal claims against Wells Fargo.
- Plaintiffs did not show proper service of process on the United States Trustee to support default judgment.
- The district court found proposed amendments would be futile and refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs could sue the chapter 7 trustee in another forum without bankruptcy-court leave | Plaintiffs proceeded against the trustee in district court (no leave sought) | Trustee argued leave was required for acts in official capacity | Dismissal affirmed: leave required; plaintiffs did not show trustee acted outside official capacity |
| Whether dismissal of federal claims against Wells Fargo was erroneous | Plaintiffs disputed dismissal (on merits in district court) | Wells Fargo argued dismissal proper; on appeal, plaintiffs failed to brief the issue | Waived on appeal for lack of briefing; no relief granted |
| Whether district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims dismissed | Plaintiffs wanted the court to resolve state-law claims | Defendants supported dismissal of pendent state claims once federal claims were gone | Court acted within discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state claims |
| Whether default judgment against the U.S. Trustee was warranted | Plaintiffs sought default judgment for lack of response | United States Trustee argued plaintiffs failed to prove proper service | Denied: plaintiffs failed to demonstrate service; default inappropriate |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Plaintiffs requested leave to amend the complaint | Defendants opposed; argued amendment would be futile | Denied: district court did not abuse discretion in finding amendment futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal)
- Beck v. Fort James Corp. (In re Crown Vantage, Inc.), 421 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.) (bankruptcy-court leave required before suing a bankruptcy trustee for official acts)
- Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir.) (issues not argued in opening brief are forfeited)
- Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.) (standard for declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir.) (factors for default judgment)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend may be denied if amendment is futile)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (appellate courts generally do not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)