
    In the Matter of LODGEBUILDER, INC., Brenda Moody Whinery, Creditor Trustee for Fort Defiance Housing Corporation, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. Trustee, Trustee-Appellee, William Aubrey; Brenda B. Todd, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 11-15873.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2012.
    Nishat Baig, Esquire, Claire Y. Dossier, Esquire, Robert Richard Kinas, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Martha E. Gibbs, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, Mark Eugene Konrad, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    U.S. Trustee, Las Vegas, NV, pro se. William Aubrey, Mesquite, NV, pro se. Brenda B. Todd, Mesquite, NV, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Aubrey and Brenda B. Todd appeal pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that their debt to Fort Defiance Housing Corp. was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s determinations, Leichty v. Neary, (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt in question was non-dischargeable because a prior decision between the parties necessarily decided that the money at issue was obtained by “false pretenses” and that Aubrey and Todd inflicted “willful and malicious injury” on Fort Defiance Housing Corp. 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(6); Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. of Nev. (In re Ormsby), 591 F.3d 1199, 1206-07 (9th Cir.2010) (setting forth elements under § 523(a)(6)); Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that “[principles of collateral estoppel apply to proceedings seeking exceptions from discharge brought under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a),” and setting forth elements under § 523(a)(2)(A)).

Appellants’ request for a stay is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     