Kathleen Ray v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

Ninth Circuit

Kathleen Ray v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

703 F. App'x 601

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

Docket16-60088

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 703 F. App'x 601 (Kathleen Ray v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kathleen Ray v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 703 F. App'x 601 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kathleen Lynne Ray appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to extend the time to file an opposition to appellee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the BAP. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Slyman (In re Slyman), 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s request for a continuance to file her opposition to appel-lee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay because Ray failed to show that she would suffer any harm as a result of the denial. See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cty., Cal., 791 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth standard of review and factors utilized for reviewing denials of requested continuances (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s motion for reconsideration because Ray failed to comply with the local bankruptcy court rules. See Bankr. D. Nev. R. 9014(a)(1) (explaining that all motions “shall be set so that at least twenty-eight (28) days’ notice of the hearing of the motion is given”).

We reject as without merit Ray’s contention that the order on appeal must be reversed due to the appearance of impropriety.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ray’s motion to stay appellate proceedings (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Kathleen Lynne Ray appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to extend the time to file an opposition to appellee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the BAP. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Slyman (In re Slyman), 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s request for a continuance to file her opposition to appel-lee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay because Ray failed to show that she would suffer any harm as a result of the denial. See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cty., Cal., 791 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth standard of review and factors utilized for reviewing denials of requested continuances (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s motion for reconsideration because Ray failed to comply with the local bankruptcy court rules. See Bankr. D. Nev. R. 9014(a)(1) (explaining that all motions “shall be set so that at least twenty-eight (28) days’ notice of the hearing of the motion is given”).

We reject as without merit Ray’s contention that the order on appeal must be reversed due to the appearance of impropriety.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ray’s motion to stay appellate proceedings (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 F. App'x 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathleen-ray-v-deutsche-bank-natl-trust-co-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack