In re: NEAL JONES; AMY JONES v. Ruchir Patel

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: NEAL JONES; AMY JONES,
Debtors,
------------------------------
NEAL JONES; AMY JONES,
Appellants,
v.
RUCHIR PATEL,
Appellee.
No. 23-60018
BAP No. 22-1104
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Faris, Lafferty III, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: SCHROEDER, COLLINS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of judgment creditor,
Ruchir Patel, holding that his Illinois judgment was enforceable against the
community property of Appellants Neal and Amy Jones in Arizona. The
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirmed, and the Joneses appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.
Appellants contend that under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(D), the judgment is
not enforceable against the community because Patel did not join both spouses in
the Illinois action. We have held that § 25-215(D) does not require joinder to
execute a foreign judgment against community property where, as here, the debt is
a community obligation, and there was no basis to name both spouses in the
foreign action. See Gagan v. Sharar, 376 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2004).
Appellants acknowledge Gagan but contend that an intervening Arizona
Supreme Court decision undermines its holding. See Lattin v. Shamrock
Materials, LLC, 503 P.3d 116 (Ariz. 2022). Lattin, however, involved an award of
fees and costs, not a foreign judgment. Id. at 120. It did not affect the validity of
Gagan or overrule any of the cases on which Gagan relied.
There is no reason to certify this case to the Arizona Supreme Court. See
Childress v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 978 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 2020). Gagan
2

-- 2 of 3 --

assesses the relevant Arizona case law and is binding precedent requiring
affirmance. Certification would only create further delay.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --