Case ID: br_569/html/0436-01.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: Nabilsi Yunes ABUD, Debtor. Ram Saxena, Appellant, v. Nabilsi Yunes Abud, Appellee.
    No. 15-60064
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Ram Saxena, Pro Se
    Nabilsi Yunes Abud, Pro Se
    
      Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ram Saxena appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from its judgment dismissing Saxena’s adversary proceeding as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review BAP decisions de novo 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 denying Saxena’s motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Saxena failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); see also, e.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394-97, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (discussing requirements for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of “catch-all provision” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).

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