Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Bradley Weston Taggart v. Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate of Stuart Brown, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 16-35402, 16-60032, 16-60033, 16-60039, 16-60040, 16-60042, 16-60043 · judgment April 23, 2018

Decided · June 3, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 19% cert probability (95% interval 15%–25%)

Before the decision, about 4.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Question presented

This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important question of federal bankruptcy law. According to the Ninth Circuit, a "creditor's good faith belief that the [Bankruptcy Code's] discharge injunction does not apply * ** precludes a finding of contempt," even if the creditor acted "unreasonbl[y ]" in violating a debtor's rights. That holding directly conflicts with the decisions of three courts of appeals, two bankruptcy appellate panels, and dozens of lower courts. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit, these other courts hold that the Code authorizes relief for discharge violations, irrespective of a creditor's good faith: "'the focus of the court's inquiry in civil contempt proceedings is not on the subjective beliefs or intent of the alleged contemnors in complying with the order, but whether in fact their conduct complied with the order at issue."' This "ineluctabl[e]" conflict was recognized by the panel, and it has since been acknowledged by multiple judges and expert commentators. The question presented was the sole basis for the decision below, and the relevant facts are clean and undisputed. Its correct disposition is vital to the proper administration of the Code, and this case is the ideal vehicle for resolving the entrenched conflict. The question presented is: Whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor's good-faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply precludes a finding of civil contempt.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Daniel L. Geyser
Haynes and Boone, LLP

For respondent
Nicole A. Saharsky
Mayer Brown LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage · 6 merits
(4 supporting pet./neither, 2 respondent)

Argument & decision

Argued April 24, 2019 — Daniel L. Geyser · Sopan Joshi · Nicole A. Saharsky. Audio and transcript

Decided June 3, 2019. Opinion by Breyer.

Proceedings

  1. Jul 05 2019
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Jun 03 2019
    Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
  3. Apr 24 2019
    Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For United States, as amicus curiae: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Nicole A. Saharsky, Washington, D. C.
  4. Apr 17 2019
    Reply of petitioner Bradley Weston Taggart filed. (Distributed)
  5. Apr 12 2019
    Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
  6. Mar 28 2019
    Brief amici curiae of State of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  7. Mar 28 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of National Creditors Bar Association filed. (Distributed)
  8. Mar 27 2019
    Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
  9. Mar 25 2019
    Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Oregon is electronic and located on Pacer, with the exception of some restricted district court documents that is electronic. The record is complete.
  10. Mar 21 2019
    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
  11. Mar 21 2019
    Brief of respondents Shelley Lorenzen, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  12. Mar 20 2019
    CIRCULATED
  13. Feb 26 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed.
  14. Feb 26 2019
    Brief amici curiae of National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center and The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys filed. (Corrected version submitted)
  15. Feb 26 2019
    Brief amici curiae of National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center and The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys filed (3/11/2019).
  16. Feb 20 2019
    Brief amici curiae of Honorable Eugene Wedoff (ret.), et al. filed.
  17. Feb 19 2019
    Joint appendix filed.
  18. Feb 19 2019
    Brief of petitioner Bradley Weston Taggart filed.
  19. Feb 11 2019
    SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 24, 2019
  20. Feb 06 2019
    Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Bradley Weston Taggart.
  21. Jan 04 2019
    Petition GRANTED.
  22. Dec 20 2018
    Reply of petitioner Bradley Weston Taggart filed. (Distributed)
  23. Dec 19 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
  24. Dec 14 2018
    Brief of respondents Shelley Lorenzen, et al. in opposition filed.
  25. Dec 11 2018
    Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed.
  26. Nov 15 2018
    Brief amici curiae of National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, et al. filed.
  27. Nov 08 2018
    Brief amici curiae of Honorable Eugene Wedoff (ret.), et al. filed.
  28. Oct 29 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2018.
  29. Oct 26 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 15, 2018 to December 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
  30. Oct 16 2018
    Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Bradley Weston Taggart.
  31. Oct 15 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 15, 2018)