
    In the Matter of: Robert Lee HAYES, Debtor. Robert Lee Hayes, Appellant, v. Allan Kanouff; Raeann Nelson, Appellees.
    No. 10-35873.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
    Robert Lee Hayes, Tacoma, WA, pro se.
    
      Laurin S. Schweet, Schweet Rieke & Linde, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Lee Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment determining that sanctions previously imposed by the Washington state court were nondischargeable. 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). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly concluded that the sanctions imposed by the Washington state court constituted nondis-chargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), given the state court findings that Hayes’s actions were willful and malicious. See Papadakis v. Zelis (In re Zelis), 66 F.3d 205, 209 (9th Cir.1995) (giving preclusive effect to state court findings to satisfy the elements of nondischargeability).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the sanctions orders. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2); see also United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082, 1099 n. 26 (9th Cir.2004). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending the outcome of the parties’ dispositive motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir.1981) (trial court may stay discovery for good cause).

Hayes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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