N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ORLD FUEL SER

VIC ES, INC ., Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. M AR TIN, De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lle e . No. 18-35164 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-02303-M O
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2019 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : N.R . SM ITH, WA TFORD, a n d R . NELSON, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED M AY15 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * 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).W orld Fue l Se rvic e s, Inc . a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing with pre j udic e its fra

udule n t c onve y anc e c la im s a g a inst Andre w M a rtin for la c k of sta nding. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse .

“ C ongre ss did not give

the ba nkruptc y c ourt e x c l usive jurisdic tion ove r a l l
c ontrove rsie s tha

t in som e wa

y a ffe c t the de b tor’ s e sta

te .” C hugac h Fore

st Prod., Inc
. v . N . Ste v e doring &

Handling C

orp. ( In reC hugac h Fore

st Prod., Inc
. ), 23 F.3d 241, 245 (9th C ir. 1994) (c ita tion omitte d); se e 28 U.S.C . § 1334(b) (“ [T] he distric t c o urts sha ll ha

ve origina l but not e xc lusive jurisdic tion of a ll c i vil proc e e dings . . . a

rising in or re late d to c a se s unde r title 11.” ). “ [I] t is we ll se ttle d that a ba nkruptc y truste e ha s no sta nding ge ne ra lly

to sue third pa

rtie s on be ha lf of the e sta te ’ s c re ditors.” S

mith v
. Arthur Anderse n LLP , 421 F.3d 989, 1002 (9th C ir. 2005) (quota

tion m a rks, c i tation, a

nd a lte ra tion omitte d ). Nor doe s the a utom atic sta y a pply to suits aga inst non-debtors. Solidus N e tw ork s, Inc . v . Ex c e l

Innov ations ( In re Ex c e l Innov ations, Inc
. ), 502 F.3d 1086, 1095 (9th C ir. 2007); c f. Am. Hardw oods, Inc . v . De utsc he C re dit C orp. ( In reAm. Hardw o ods, Inc
. ), 885 F.2d 621, 625-26 (9th C ir. 1989) (re c ogniz ing tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt ha s no powe r to
a ffe c t the lia

b ility or obliga t ions of a de btor’ s non-de btor gua

ran tors). Thus, a ba nkruptc y truste e ha s e xc lusive sta

nding only

to the e xte nt the ba

nkruptc y de btor ha s a n inte re s t in theprope rty

a lle ge dly fra u dule ntly c onve y e d. Se e In reHe lle r 2Ehrman LLP , 830 F.3d 964, 969 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Be g ie r v . IRS , 496 U.S. 53, 58 (1990)); se e also Milby v . Te mple ton (

In re Milby ), 875 F.3d 1229, 1235 (9th C ir. 2017). W orld Fue l’ s c la im s a

re ba se d on a

n a l le ge dly fraudule nt tra

nsfe r of prope rty be twe e n Eve rgre e n Holdings— E v e rgre e n Inte rnationa l Avia t ion’ s (Aviat ion) pa

re nt c om pa ny , whic h is not in ba

nkruptc y
— and M artin. The pa

rtie s a gre e tha t Holdings is the title o wne r of the prope rty at issue . The De la

ware B ankruptc y

C ourt de te rm ine d tha

t Avia tion’ s se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt with M artin did not inde

pe nde ntly give Avia

tion a ny inte re st in theprope rty ; rathe r, Avia tion’ s c la im is limite d to a

n a s -y e t unre solve d

e quita ble inte re st a sse rte d

in the pe nding ba nkruptc y proc e e ding. Thus, whet

he r Aviation ha s a

ny inte re st in the prope rty

is a dispute d que stion of fa c t . 1 The re fore , the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it de te rm ine d on
sum m ary judgm e nt tha

t W orld Fue l la c ke d sta

nding to bring the se c la im s. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 On a ppe a l, M artin a sse rts Avia tion ha s a n inte re st unde r an a l te r-e go the ory . Howe ve r, tha

t a rgum e nt wa s not ra ise d

be fore the distric t c ourt, a nd re l ie s on fa c t ua l findings tha

t we re not m a de be low. W e de c line to re a c h this a rgum e nt on a ppe a l. Bac c e i v
. Unite d State s , 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [W ] e ge ne ra lly will not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l .” ). 3