Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0517-01.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 Karen Michele ROZIER, Debtor. Karen Michele Rozier, Appellant, v. U.S. Bank N.A., Appellee.
    Nos. 13-60106.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Decided Dec. 16, 2015.
    Karen Michele Rozier, Buena Park, CA, pro se.
    Adam N. Barasch, Esq., Jan T. Chilton, Bernard Kornberg, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karen Michele Rozier appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting U.S. Bank N.A.’s motion for relief from stay with respect to certain real property. 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.

U.S. Bank had standing to seek relief from the automatic stay with respect to certain real property because U.S. Bank established that it had a colorable claim to the property. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“[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.”); see also Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir.2010). (“Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.”).

We- reject Rozier’s contentions regarding the alleged bias of the bankruptcy court judge and a member of the BAP.

Rozier’s request for judicial notice is denied.

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