Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE: THOMAS BRUCE MILLER, No. 25-3473 DEBTOR D.C. No. 8:24-cv-02559-AH DEBORAH WILKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. Mr. THOMAS H. CASEY, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Anne Hwang, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 21, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, District Judge.*** * 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). *** The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Deborah Wilkinson appeals the district court’s decision affirming a bankruptcy court order disallowing her proof of claim against the bankruptcy estate of Thomas Bruce Miller. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and we affirm. On de novo review of the district court’s decision on appeal from bankruptcy court, “[w]e review the bankruptcy court’s decision independently of the district court’s decision.” In re Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 217 F.3d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2000). We review de novo the application of res judicata. See Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). We apply the California state law of res judicata in this context, which, like federal law, bars relitigating of a claim between the same parties that was or could have been raised and went to final judgment. See id. at 1031; DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015). In December 2020, Wilkinson filed an amended complaint in Orange County Superior Court against Miller alleging three independent breaches of a ground lease, which included a claim that Miller had breached the maintenance and repair covenant, and sought damages. After a bench trial, the state court determined that Miller was liable for breach of the covenants to pay rent and taxes and awarded damages on those theories of breach. However, the court awarded no damages as to Miller’s alleged breach of the maintenance and repair covenant. The court concluded that Wilkinson was not entitled to a cost of repair remedy while the lease was in place and had not offered evidence that Miller breached his duty to repair or damaged her reversionary interest. See Avalon Pacific-Santa Ana, L.P. v. HG Supply Repair & Remodel, LLC, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417, 436–38 (Ct. App. 2011). Miller thereafter filed for bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy proceeding, Wilkinson filed a proof of claim, again trying to obtain cost of repair damages for Miller’s breach of his duty to maintain the property. The bankruptcy judge applied res judicata to disallow Wilkinson’s claim, and the district court affirmed, noting that “except for unspecified generalities and allusions, there was virtually no evidence at trial” about the condition of the property when Miller came into possession and thus whether any alleged property damage occurred “during the 16 years of the Miller possession.” As the district court infers, by failing to offer evidence to support the only available remedy, Wilkinson also failed to offer evidence that Miller even breached the underlying duty to maintain. We agree that res judicata bars Wilkinson’s claim against the bankruptcy estate. Under the California law of res judicata, Wilkinson cannot relitigate the same breach of contract claim she brought in state court. See Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297, 307 (Cal. 2002) (“It is well established that a judgment in an action for breach of contract bars a subsequent action for additional 3 25-3473 relief based on the same breach.”); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010) (explaining that a “cause of action” for res judicata purposes is “the right to obtain redress for a harm suffered, regardless of the specific remedy sought”). The state court order was a final judgment on the merits, over the same cause of action, and involved the same parties. Wilkinson could have, but did not, offer evidence that Miller owed her damages for injury to her reversion interest as a result of his breach of the duty to maintain the property. Relitigating that same claim, albeit seeking a different remedy, is barred by res judicata. See Mycogen Corp., 51 P.3d at 307. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court correctly disallowed Wilkinson’s claim. AFFIRMED. 4 25-3473