Legal Opinion · Dissent
Chase v. Kosmala (In re Loyd)
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 11, 2003No. BAP No. CC-02-1235-KMaMo; Bankruptcy No. SA 01-14300-LRPublished
1Dissent
KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge,
dissenting.
Although the majority is correct that Rule 9011 cannot support the award that is *375appealed, the error is harmless because we should affirm on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
We are compelled to refrain from reversing on account of error that does not affect the substantive rights of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Fed.R.Civ.P. 61, incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9005. Hence, we are authorized to affirm for another reason supported by the record. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1027 n. 3 (9th Cir.1999); Shubov, 253 B.R. at 547.
Although Rule 9011 no longer…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. KrasSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Roy Richard Dittman v. State of California State and Consumer Affairs Agency Medical Board of California Acupuncture Committee and Marilyn NielsenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.