Berg v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 96-16672

Citation230 F.3d 1165
Decision Date23 October 2000
Docket NumberNo. 96-16672,96-16672
Parties(9th Cir. 2000) In re: JEROME BERG, Debtor. JEROME BERG, Appellant, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, Appellee
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Jerome Berg, Law Offices of Jerome Berg, San Francisco, California, Pro Se.

Mike C. Buckley, Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Oakland, California, for the appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Russell, Mund, and Meyers, Judges, Presiding. BAP No. 95-01537-RmuMe

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, David R. Thompson, and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.

TROTT, Circuit Judge:

Debtor Jerome Berg ("Berg") appeals from the decision of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP" or "the Panel") affirming a decision of the bankruptcy court. The Panel held that an award of attorneys' fees imposed as a sanction for frivolous conduct in litigation is not subject to the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. 362(a) when a debtor files for bankruptcy. The Panel held that instead, the award of sanctions falls under the "government regulatory power" exemption of 362(b)(4). Berg challenges this decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d), and we AFFIRM.

I BACKGROUND

This appeal arises out of a related case that came before us in 1994 in which Berg served as counsel of record. See Smith v. Ricks , 31 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1994). In that case, Berg represented a cardiologist Dr. John Smith, who sued Good Samaritan Hospital ("Good Samaritan" or "the Hospital") and several of its physicians and board members for antitrust violations after he was removed from the Hospital staff. After losing in district court, Dr. Smith, represented by Berg, appealed to this court. We affirmed the findings of the district court. We also sanctioned Berg pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("Rule 38") for prosecuting a frivolous appeal, and ordered him to pay the Hospital's attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the appeal. See Smith v. Ricks , 31 F.3d at 1489.

On September 9, 1993, while the appeal in Smith v. Ricks was proceeding, Berg filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. He gave no notice to this court of that filing. When counsel for Good Samaritan discovered that Berg's bankruptcy petition was pending, they determined that they needed to obtain relief from the automatic stay before proceeding to judgment and liquidating the claim for fees and costs. In seeking this relief from the bankruptcy court, the Hospital contended that the award of sanctions was not subject to the automatic stay at all, but instead fell under the government regulatory power exemption in 362(b)(4). The bankruptcy court granted the Hospital relief from the stay on these grounds, and the BAP affirmed this decision. See In re Berg, 198 B.R. 557 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996). This appeal followed.

II DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review

We review the BAP's interpretation of the bankruptcy code de novo. See In re Celebrity Home Entertainment, Inc., 210 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2000).

2. Applicability of the Government Regulatory Exemption

Title 11 U.S.C. 362(a) provides that all collection activities taken or suits brought against a debtor must cease when he or she files for bankruptcy. The petition for bankruptcy operates as an automatic stay on all such activities. See id. However, the government regulatory exemption of 362(b)(4) provides that the filing of a petition for bankruptcy does not stay "the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit . . . to enforce such governmental unit's . . . police and regulatory power." 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) (Supp. 2000). This exemption "prevent[s] the bankruptcy court from becoming a haven for wrongdoers." O'Brien v. Fischel, 74 B.R. 546, 550 (D. Haw. 1987).

The specific issue of whether the government regulatory exemption applies to an award of sanctions for frivolous conduct in litigation is one of first impression in this circuit. To decide it, we use two tests to determine whether the section 362(b)(4) exemption applies: the "pecuniary purpose" test and the "public policy" test. See In re Universal Life Church , 128 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1997). In Universal Life Church, we explained the two tests as follows:

Under the pecuniary purpose test, the court determines whether the government action relates primarily to the protection of the government's pecuniary interest in the debtor's property or to matters of public safety and welfare. If the government action is pursued solely to advance a pecuniary interest of the governmental unit, the stay will be imposed. The public policy test "distinguishes between government actions that effectuate public policy and those that adjudicate private rights."

Id. (citations omitted). The question in this case, then, is whether Rule 38 sanctions relate primarily to the protection of the government's pecuniary interest in the debtor's property, or to matters of public policy.

Several other courts have explicitly addressed the issue presented in this case. The majority of those courts agree that a claimant may proceed to collect attorneys' fees imposed as a sanction for the debtor's improper conduct in litigation without regard to the automatic stay.1 For example, in Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit stated:

A litigant should not be allowed to delay the imposition of sanctions indefinitely by the expedient of declaring bankruptcy. Allowing him to do so would not only increase the number of bankruptcy filings but also create incentives for unprofessional conduct in litigation by firms or individuals teetering on the edge of the bankruptcy abyss.

Id. at 690. While Alpern is the only circuit court opinion on point, several district and bankruptcy courts have also concluded that sanctions for attorney misconduct are not subject to the automatic stay. See Maritan v. Todd, 203 B.R. 740, 741 (N.D. Okla. 1996); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1993); O'Brien, 74 B.R. at 550. We adopt the reasoning of these cases and hold that 362(b)(4)'s government regulatory exemption exempts from the automatic stay an award of attorneys' fees imposed under Rule 38 as a sanction for unprofessional conduct in litigation. We do so because it is clear that the purpose of such sanctions is to effectuate public policy, not to protect private rights or the government's interest in the sanctioned person's property.

Berg's arguments as to why the automatic stay should apply are unpersuasive. In an overly-literal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • California ex rel. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp, C-02-1787-VRW.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 25 Marzo 2003
    ...exception, "which is to prevent the bankruptcy court from becoming a haven for wrongdoers," id at 109 (citing In re Berg, 230 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000)), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court's stay of Similarly, in the instant case, the AG seeks to enforce its ......
  • In re Benalcazar
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 15 Agosto 2002
    ...rule on their own initiative. Cf. Berg v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 198 B.R. 557, 562 n. 10 (9th Cir. BAP 1996), aff'd sub. nom. In re Berg, 230 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2000) (applying § 362(b)(4) to sanction proceedings initiated by the 9th Circuit under Fed. R.App. P. 38, but noting that sua spont......
  • In re Aheong, BAP No. HI-01-1315-MoRyB.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit
    • 29 Marzo 2002
    ...opportunity but failure to inform court of bankruptcy filing appeared to present "strong circumstance" for annulment), aff'd, 230 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2000). V. For two independent reasons the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Order Annulling Stay, notwithstanding the dismissal o......
  • RDLG, LLC v. Leonard (In re Leonard)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 14 Marzo 2014
    ...automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) for post-petition sanctions imposed under various federal rules. See Berg v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 230 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 sanctions imposed post-petition were excepted from the au......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • SEC Temporary Asset Freeze Not Barred By Automatic Stay Provisions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 Abril 2015
    ...public policy rather than to adjudicate private rights (the public policy test). (See Berg v. Good Samaritan Hospital (In re Berg), 230 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2000).) Because the SEC had not yet obtained a final judgment against the Wylys, the district court had no reason to reach this analysi......
2 books & journal articles
  • Sheryl A. Kass, Bankruptcy and Low Income Housing: Where Is the Voice of the Tenants?
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 22-1, March 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...proceedings which relate primarily to matters of public safety are excepted from the stay."); Berg v. Good Samaritan Hosp. (In re Berg), 230 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that the question of sanctions falling within the police powers relies on whether the sanctions relate to a m......
  • Going for Broke: a Legal Primer on When a Government Action May Proceed Against a Bankrupt Defendant
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Public Law Journal (CLA) No. 45-2-3, June 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...328.7. 11 U.S.C. § 105.8. See 11 U.S.C. § 362, subd. (b).9. See In re First Alliance, 263 B.R. at 107 [quoting In re Berg (9th Cir. 2000) 230 F.3d 1165, 1167]; see also CFTC v. Co Petro Mktg. Group, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 700 F.2d 1279, 1283 [where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted tha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT