N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re NAZIE AZAM , De

btor,
NAZIE AZAM , Appe lla

nt,
v. U.S. B ANK NATIONAL ASSOC IATION, a s Truste e , Suc c e ssor in Inte re st to B ank of Am e ric a Na tiona l Assoc iation a s Suc c e ssor by M e rge r to La Sa lle B a nk NA a s Truste e for W a m u M ortga ge Pa ss Through C e rtific a te s 2006- AR Trust, Appe lle e . No. 14-55523 D.C . No. 8:13-c v-01485-JLS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
MAR 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, M U R GUIA, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . Na z ie Az a m

a ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm i ng the de c ision of the b ankruptc y c ourt, whic h dism isse d Az a m ’ s c ha

pte r 13 c a s e . Inde p e nde n tly
re vie wing the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s c onc lusions of la w de novo a

nd its fa c tua l findings for c le ar e rror, Le av itt v . Soto (In re Le av itt) , 171 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th C ir. 1999), we a ffirm
. 1 1. Az a m ’ s filing of two inte rloc utory a ppe a l s of m a tte rs re lat e d to the
a utom a t ic sta

y did not de

prive the ba

nkruptc y c ourt of jurisdic tion to dism i ss he r ba nkruptc y c a se . While the ba

nkruptc y c ourt “ m ay not fina lly

a djudic at e substa ntia l rights dire c tly

involve d in the a

ppe a l,” N e ary v . Padilla (In re Padilla) , 222 F.3d 1184, 1190 (9th C ir. 2000) (c i tation om itte d), “ [t] he a ppe a l of a n orde r doe s not . . . de

prive the tria l c ourt of jurisdic tion ove r issue s not ra ise d in tha t orde r,” W adev . State

Bar of Ariz. (In re

W ade ) , 115 B
. R . 222, 230 (B .A.P. 9th C ir.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).
1 Az a m ’ s re que sts for judic ia l notic e are grante d “ to the e x te nt tha t it is c om patible with Fe d. R . Evid. 201 a nd doe s not re q

uire the a c c e p ta

nc e of fa c ts subje c t to re a sona

b le dispute
. ” Assoc iate d Ge n. C ontrac tors of Am., San Die go C hapte r, Inc . v . C

al. De p’t of Transp. , 713 F.3d 1187, 1190 n.1 (9th C ir. 2013) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd a lte ra tion om itte d ).

21990), aff’d , 948 F.2d 1122 (9th C ir. 1991). Az a m did not se e k to sta y the proc e e dings pe nding theoutc om e of he r a ppe a ls re l a te d to the ba

n k ruptc y sta y , a nd the a ppe a ls did not pre c lude the ba nkruptc y c ourt from

dism issing Az a m ’ s ba nkruptc y c a se . Se e She rman v . SEC (In re She rman) , 491 F.3d 948, 967 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ If a pa

rty wa nts to sta y a ll of the proc e e dings in ba nkruptc y c ourt while an a

ppe a l is pe n d ing, it m

ust file a m o tion for a

sta y .” ); W ade , 115 B .R . at 230 (holding tha

t a ba nkruptc y c ourt re ta ine d jurisdic tion to dism iss a de b tor’ s
c ounte rc la im s re late d to a l le ge d viola tions of the a

utom a tic sta

y de spite an a

ppe a l of m a tte rs re l a te d to the a u tom atic sta

y ). 2. The ba

nkruptc y c o urt c ould dism

iss Az a m ’ s ba

nkruptc y c a se re ga

rdle ss of whe the r U.S. B a

nk ha d sta

nding to re que s t dism issa l. Se e de la Salle v . U.S. Bank , N .A. (In re de la Salle

) , 461 B
. R . 593, 604 (B
. A.P. 9th C ir. 2011) (noting tha t whe the r a c re ditor ha d sta

nding wa s “ irre le va

nt” to the ba

n kruptc y c ourt’ s a bility to c o nve rt or dismiss a

de btor’ s c ha

pte r 13 c a se ). In a

ny e ve nt, U.S. B a

nk did ha ve sta nding. Unde r 11 U.S.C . § 1307(c ), a “ pa rty in inte re st” m ay

re que st dismissa l for c a use . B ut “ a

c re ditor doe s not ne e d a

n a llowe d c la i m

to be a pa rty in inte re st for purpose s of § 1307(c ).” de la Salle , 461 B .R . at 604. R a the r, any c re ditor with
a right to pa

ym e n t ha s sta

nding to re que st dismissa l
. Id. He re , U.S. B a n k ha d a

3right to pa

ym e nt unde r Az a m ’ s ba

nkruptc y pla n due to the unla

wful de ta i ne r a c tion
and the re fore ha d sta

nding to re que st dismi ssa l
. 3. U.S. B an k ha d file d a n obje c tion to Az a m ’ s propose d pla n a nd a re que st for dism issa l for ba d fa ith be fore the he aring. Az a m re sponde d to this motion in writing. Az a m

a lso ha d am

ple opportunity

to a rgue a t the he aring why he r c a se should not be

dism i sse d. She wa s the re fore give n “ a m e aningful opportunity

to be he ard.” R osson v . Fitzge rald (In re Rosson) , 545 F.3d 764, 776 (9th C ir. 2008). 4. The ba

nkruptc y c o urt m a de suffic i e nt findings of fa c t to justify dism issa l for ba d fa ith. It wa s e vide nt throughout the he aring tha

t the ba nkruptc y c ourt sa w no le gitim ate purpose in Az a m ’ s c ha pte r 13 pe tition. Ra the r, the ba nkruptc y c ourt found tha t Az a m ’ s c a se wa s brought for the im prope r purpose of se e king a m ore fa vora ble forum in whic h to litiga

te c la im s re late d to the fore c losure of he r hom e
and to buy

m ore tim e . This finding wa s not c le arly e rrone ous, a

nd it a m ply supports dism

issa l for ba d fa ith. Se e Le av itt , 171 F.3d a t 1224 (noting tha

t a de btor’ s unfa ir m anipula

tion of theB ankruptc y

C o de , history

of filings a

nd dism issa ls, inte nt to de fe a t sta te c ourt litiga

tion through the

ba nkruptc y filing, a nd
e gre gious be havior a

re a ll fa c tors supporting a finding of ba d fa ith unde r the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s ). Az a m ’ s pre se nt ba n kruptc y filing, he r fourth, propose d to pa y he r c re ditors only

ha lf of wha

t the y we re owe d. Ye t

she wa s 4sta

tutorily ine ligible for this sort of discha rge be c a use she ha d re c e ive d a

c ha pte r 7 disc ha rge thre e y e a

rs be fore
. Se e 11 U.S.C . § 1328(f). Thus he r pe tition wa s
c le arly not brought in good fa

ith. 5. The distric t c ourt judge wa s not re quire d to re c use he rse lf. B e c a u se Az a m
ra ise s re c usa l for the first tim e on a ppe a l, we re vie w the issue for pla i n e rror. Unite d State s v . Holland

, 519 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C ir. 2008). A judge m ust disqua lify he rse lf “ in a

ny proc e e ding in whic h [he r] im pa rtia lity m ight re a sona

bly be que stione d.” 28 U.S.C . § 455(a ). Az a m fa ils to m a

ke an inte lligibleargum e nt that “ a re a sona ble pe rson with knowle dge of a ll the fa c ts would c onc l ude tha t the judge ’ s im

p artia l ity m ight re a sona

bly be que stione d.” Holland , 519 F.3d a

t 913 (c ita tion om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

5