Case ID: br_580/html/0375-01.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: Reynaldo F. MARQUES, Debtor. Reynaldo F. Marques, Appellant, v. James J. Joseph, Trustee; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, Appellees.
    No. 16-60095
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    Reynaldo F, Marques, Pro Se
    James J. Joseph, Pro Se
    David M. Liu, Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, Costa Mesa, CA, for Appellee
    
      Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, 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 Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. 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 by granting relief from the automatic stay because JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v. Griffin ( In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[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.”); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.

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