Nathaniel Basola Sobayo v. Martin Musonge

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 26, 2022
• Docket: 21-60024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARTIN MUSONGE, No. 21-60024

Debtor, BAP No. 20-1060

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO,

Appellant,

v.

HIEN THI NGUYEN; MARTIN MUSONGE,

Appellees.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Brand, Klein, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Nathaniel Basola Sobayo appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate

* 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). Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing for lack of standing Sobayo’s appeal from

the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo issues of

standing. Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC v. Lehman Com. Paper, Inc. (In re Palmdale

Hills Prop., LLC), 654 F.3d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Sobayo’s appeal because Sobayo, as a creditor,

lacked standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the

automatic stay. See Tilley v. Vucurevich (In re Pecan Groves of Ariz.), 951 F.2d

242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] creditor has no independent standing to appeal an

adverse decision regarding a violation of the automatic stay.”); see also Harkey v.

Grobstein (In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc.), 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018)

(“[O]nly a person aggrieved, that is, someone who is directly and adversely

affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy court’s order, has standing to appeal that

order.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Nguyen’s motion to submit the case for decision without oral argument

(Docket Entry No. 18) and Sobayo’s motion to exceed the page limit, set forth in

the opening brief, are granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-60024