Narrative Opinion Summary
The judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is affirmed as detailed in its memorandum decision dated March 21, 2006. Williams’ motion to certify state law issues to the Arizona Supreme Court is denied. His motion to supplement the record is granted for documents numbered 32, 36, 37, and 38, while it is denied for documents numbered 33, 34, 35, and 39. McDermott Trayner's request for attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 is also denied. This decision is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel as explained in its memorandum decision.
Reasoning: The judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is affirmed as detailed in its memorandum decision dated March 21, 2006.
Attorneys’ Fees under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The request for attorneys’ fees made by McDermott Trayner was denied.
Reasoning: McDermott Trayner's request for attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 is also denied.
Certification of State Law Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Williams' motion to certify state law issues to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Reasoning: Williams’ motion to certify state law issues to the Arizona Supreme Court is denied.
Motion to Supplement Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Williams' motion to supplement the record was granted for specific documents and denied for others.
Reasoning: His motion to supplement the record is granted for documents numbered 32, 36, 37, and 38, while it is denied for documents numbered 33, 34, 35, and 39.
Precedential Value of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as provided under specific rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.