FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: TONI MARIE GRIFFIN,

Debtor,

PETER H. ARKISON, Chapter 7

Trustee,

Appellant,

v.

TONI MARIE GRIFFIN; U.S. BANK

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Appellees.

No. 12-60046

BAP No.

11-1362

OPINION

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kirscher, Hollowell, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges,

Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 5, 2013—Seattle, Washington

Filed June 26, 2013

Before: Arthur L. Alarcón, M. Margaret McKeown,

and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion
2 IN RE: GRIFFIN

 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

*

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

SUMMARY

*

Bankruptcy

Affirming a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel,

the panel held that a bank, by providing a copy of a copy of

the promissory note with respect to which the bank sought

relief from an automatic stay, and a declaration establishing

the bank’s possession of the original note, established

prudential standing to file a motion for relief from the stay.

COUNSEL

Tuella O. Sykes, The Law Office of Tuella O. Sykes, PLLC,

Seattle, Washington, for Appellant.

Fred B. Burnside, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle,

Washington, for Appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

U.S. Bank N.A. filed a motion for relief from the

automatic stay in this bankruptcy case. To establish its

standing to bring this motion, the bank submitted a copy of

the promissory note with respect to which the bank sought
IN RE: GRIFFIN 3

relief from the stay. This copy was apparently a

second-generation copy of the note, because it reproduced a

certification affixed to the first-generation copy that stated:

“We hereby certify that this is a true & correct copy of the

original. CTX Mortgage Company, LLC.” The bank also

submitted a declaration certifying that the original note was

in the bank’s files. The trustee argued that a duplicate of a

duplicate of the original note was insufficient to establish

prudential standing. The bankruptcy court rejected this

argument and the BAP affirmed.

We agree with the First Circuit that a duplicate of a

duplicate is a duplicate for purposes of Federal Rule of

Evidence 1003. See United States v. Carroll, 860 F.2d 500,

507 (1st Cir. 1988). We therefore conclude that U.S. Bank

N.A., by providing a copy of a copy of the note and a

declaration establishing its possession of the original note,

established prudential standing to file the motion for relief

from the stay.

A proceeding to determine eligibility for relief from a stay

only determines whether a creditor should be released from

the stay in order to argue the merits in a separate proceeding.

Johnson v. Righetti, 756 F.2d 738, 740–41 (9th Cir. 1985).

Given the limited nature of the relief obtained through this

proceeding and because 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. In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 914–15 (B.A.P.

9th Cir. 2011). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its

discretion in granting relief from the stay.

AFFIRMED.