Tuli v. Sprecher + Schuh Group (In re Tuli)

Ninth Circuit

Tuli v. Sprecher + Schuh Group (In re Tuli)

143 F. App'x 849, 335 B.R. 849

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2005

DocketNo. 04-15869

StatusPublished

This text of 143 F. App'x 849 (Tuli v. Sprecher + Schuh Group (In re Tuli)) 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

Tuli v. Sprecher + Schuh Group (In re Tuli), 143 F. App'x 849, 335 B.R. 849 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Balbir Singh Tuli appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Tub’s motion to treat his prior motions to renew and reinstate as motions to withdraw the reference to district court or in the alternative to transfer his case to a district court in another state. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We treat the denial of Tub’s motion as a denial of reconsideration and review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision.¹ See Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner), 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that this court reviews the bankruptcy court’s orders independently of the BAP’s decision). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it decbned to reopen adversary proceedings it had dismissed over five years earlier for failure to prosecute, because Tub demonstrated no extraordinary circumstances and did not explain or excuse his own delays and failure to file his action in another forum. See Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (“[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) ] should only be applied in ‘extraordinary circumstances’ ”); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is unavailable where “the party seeking reconsideration has ignored normal legal recourses”) (internal citations omitted).

Tub’s contention regarding abstention is effectively foreclosed by our decision in his prior appeal. See Tuli v. Sprecher Energie A.G. (In re Tuli), 21 Fed. Appx. 567, 569 (9th Cir.2001).

Tub’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

**

Balbir Singh Tuli appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Tub’s motion to treat his prior motions to renew and reinstate as motions to withdraw the reference to district court or in the alternative to transfer his case to a district court in another state. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We treat the denial of Tub’s motion as a denial of reconsideration and review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision.¹ See Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner), 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that this court reviews the bankruptcy court’s orders independently of the BAP’s decision). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it decbned to reopen adversary proceedings it had dismissed over five years earlier for failure to prosecute, because Tub demonstrated no extraordinary circumstances and did not explain or excuse his own delays and failure to file his action in another forum. See Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (“[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) ] should only be applied in ‘extraordinary circumstances’ ”); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is unavailable where “the party seeking reconsideration has ignored normal legal recourses”) (internal citations omitted).

Tub’s contention regarding abstention is effectively foreclosed by our decision in his prior appeal. See Tuli v. Sprecher Energie A.G. (In re Tuli), 21 Fed. Appx. 567, 569 (9th Cir.2001).

Tub’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F. App'x 849, 335 B.R. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuli-v-sprecher-schuh-group-in-re-tuli-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack