Feedback

Scheer V State Bar Of California

                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      JUL 22 2025
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARILYN S. SCHEER                              No. 24-2099
                                                      BAP No. 23-1159
               Debtor

----------------------------------                    MEMORANDUM*
MARILYN SUE SCHEER,

               Appellant,

  v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, a public
corporation,

               Appellee.


                           Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                            Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
   Scott H. Gan, Frederick Philip Corbit, and Robert J. Faris, Bankruptcy Judges,
                                     Presiding

                                     Submitted July 15, 2025**


       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Scheer’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Chapter 7 debtor Marilyn Sue Scheer, a California attorney suspended from

the practice of law, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)

judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing for failure to state a

claim Scheer’s adversary complaint against the State Bar of California. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d)(1). We review de novo a decision of the BAP

and apply the same standard of review the BAP applied to the underlying

bankruptcy court decision. In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2021).

We affirm.

      The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Scheer’s adversary complaint

because Scheer failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the State Bar violated

the discharge injunction or engaged in bankruptcy discrimination against her. See

11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), § 525(a); Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554, 557 (2019)

(holding that “a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a

discharge order [under § 524(a)(2)] if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether

the order barred the creditor’s conduct”); Albert-Sheridan v. State Bar of Cal. (In

re Albert-Sheridan), 960 F.3d 1188, 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that

“the costs of State Bar attorney disciplinary proceedings are non-dischargeable”

and that, as to bankruptcy discrimination, “the State Bar is within its right to

condition reinstatement [of a law license] on the payment of [nondischargeable]



                                         2                                     24-2099
debt”).

      AFFIRMED.




                  3   24-2099