Case ID: br_515/html/0544-01.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 REALIA, INC., Debtor, North American Service Holdings, Inc., Appellant, v. Eric M. Black, L.L.C., Appellee.
    No. 12-60029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014.
    Filed April 16, 2014.
    Paul Eleven, Law Office of Paul Eleven, Berkeley, CA, for Appellant.
    John J. Fries Ryley Carlock & Apple-white, Phoenix, AZ, William E. Manning, Esquire, Lucian B. Murley, Esquire, Saul Ewing, LLP, Wilimington, DE, for Appel-lee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant North American Service Holdings, Inc. (“NASH”) seeks review of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s memorandum decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s declaratory judgment that NASH did not hold an option to purchase a parcel of real property in Visaba, California. This court independently reviews the bankruptcy court’s decision, see, e.g., Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 795 (9th Cir.1986), and we affirm.

Upon de novo review, we determine that the bankruptcy court had ancillary jurisdiction to interpret or to clarify its August 9, 2006 order. See Battle Ground Plaza, LLC v. Ray (In re Ray), 624 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir.2010). The bankruptcy court reopened the bankruptcy case for this limited purpose, and provided the parties with the requested clarification.

Turning to the merits, we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. See, e.g., Hedlund v. Educ. Res. Inst. Inc., 718 F.3d 848, 853-54 (9th Cir.2013). We conclude that NASH offers no meritorious basis on which to vacate the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of its own prior order. Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s August 9, 2006 order, for the reasons given by the bankruptcy court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.