Reynaldo Marques v. James Joseph

Ninth Circuit

Reynaldo Marques v. James Joseph

708 F. App'x 375

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 2017

Docket16-60095

StatusUnpublished

This text of 708 F. App'x 375 (Reynaldo Marques v. James Joseph) 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

Reynaldo Marques v. James Joseph, 708 F. App'x 375 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the automatic stay because JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v. Griffin ( In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[Bjecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.

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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the automatic stay because JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v. Griffin ( In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[Bjecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

In Re: Cybernetic Services, Inc., D/B/A Silent Radio, Inc., Debtor. Petitioning Creditors Byron Z. Moldo, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Cybernetic Services, Inc., Dba Silent Radio, Inc. ("Moldo") v. Matsco, Inc., in Re: Cybernetic Services, Inc., D/B/A Silent Radio, Inc., Debtor. Byron Z. Moldo, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Matsco, Inc., and Matsco Financial Corporation, Petitioning Creditors

252 F.3d 1039 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Arkison v. Griffin (In Re Griffin)

719 F.3d 1126 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Boyajian v. New Falls Corp.

564 F.3d 1088 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 F. App'x 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynaldo-marques-v-james-joseph-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack