2 . Dkt. 17 at 23. 3 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7056. 4 . Huey v. Honeywell, Inc., 82 F.3d 327, 334 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). 5 . 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A). 6 . Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Bernard v. Sheaffer (In re Bernard), 96 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1996)). 7 . Commerce Bank and Trust Co. v. Burgess (In re Burgess), 955 F.2d 134, 137 (1st Cir.1992) (quoting Dilworth v. Boothe, 69 F.2d 621, 624 (5th Cir.1934)). 8 . Chung v. Animal Clinic, 63 Haw. 642, 645, 636 P.2d 721 (Haw. 1981). 9 . Haw.Rev.Stat. § 414-42(4). 10 . Id. 11 . See, e.g., Cambridge Tempositions, Inc. v. Cassis (In re Cassis), 220 B.R. 979, n re Reed), 700 F.2d 986, 993 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Compare Sachan v. Huh (In re Huh), 506 B.R.
recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse holding that knowledge of prohibited activities is not necessarily the same as fraudulent intent and that the code does not allow attribution of intent from spouse to spouse holding that fraudulent intent as required in the charge of embezzlement can be inferred from the facts proven direct evidence of such intent is not necessary holding that a spouse is not necessarily an agent of the debtor holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium