Case ID: br_563/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Edward NEGRETE, Jr., Debtor. Edward Negrete, Jr., Appellant, v. Citizens State Bank, Appellee.
    No. 14-60056
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 05, 2016
    
      Edward Negrete, Jr., Pro Se
    David Friedman, Esquire, Friedman & Friedman, Beverly Hills, CA, for Appellee
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Edward Negrete, Jr. appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion for contempt and his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P, 59(e). 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 in denying Negrete’s motion for contempt because Negrete failed to demonstrate that Citizens State Bank violated a court order. See In re Icenhower, 755 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A party may be held in civil contempt only if it violated a specific and definite order of the court” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Negrete’s motion under Rule 59(e) because Negrete failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing factors for granting a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

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