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 : J& M FOOD SER

VIC ES, INC . , De btor,

------------------------------ J& M FOOD SER

VIC ES, INC ., Appe lla nt, v. C AM EL INVESTM ENT, L.L.C .,

Appe lle e . No. 18-60021 B AP No. 17-1291 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kurtz , La ffe rty

III, and B ra

nd, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

17, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d M ORR IS, ** Distric t Judge .



# FIL ED M AY24 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 Honora

ble B rian M . M o rris, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion.J& M Food Se rvic e s , Inc . , a ppe a ls the B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pan e l’ s orde r a ffirm ing the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s gra

nt of C am e l Inve s tm e nt, L.L.C . ,’ s m otion to lift the a utom a tic sta

y with re spe c t to J& M ’ s le a se of c om m e rc ia l prope rty

from C am e l a nd de nia l of J& M ’ s m otion to a ssum e the le a se nunc pro tunc . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158, a nd we a ffirm . J& M did not file

a writte n m otion or m ak e an ora l m otion to a ssum e the le a se , a n d a de btor-in-posse ssion c annot a ssum e a le a se a bse nt suc h a

m o tion. Se e Se a Harv e

st C orp. v . Riv ie ra Land C

o. , 868 F.2d 1077, 1079 (9th C ir. 1989); se e also 11 U.S.C . § 365(d)(4)(A); Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 6006, 9013, 9014. J&M ’ s sta te m e nts be fore the ba

nk ruptc y c ourt did not a

m ount to a

n ora l m otion be c a

use the y did not “ sta

te with pa rtic ula rity the grounds” for the m otion or “ se t forth the re lie f or orde r sought.” Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 9013. The re fore , J& M ’ s le a se wa s

“ de e m e d re

je c te d ” whe n the 120-da

y sta tutory de a dline to a s sum e or re

je c t a n une xpire d le a se of nonre side n tia l re a l prope rty pa s se d. 11 U.S.C . § 365(d)(4)(A). Eve n a ssum ing the e quita ble doc trine s of wa i ve r and e stoppe l c an a pply to pre v e n t the sta

tutory re je c t ion of a

le a se unde r § 365(d)(4)(A), se e Ge orgev . C ity of Morrow

Bay (In reGe orge

) , 177 F.3d 885, 889 (9th C i r. 1999), J& M did not m e e t the c onditions for those doc trine s he re . The ba

nkruptc y c ourt found tha

t C am e l did not e n ga g e in a ny post-pe tition ine quita

ble c onduc t in c onne c tion with 2its re lationship with J&M . This finding wa s not c le a rly e rrone ous, a

n d a c c ordingly the b ankruptc y c ourt did not err in de c lining to a pply e stoppe l in this c a se . Se e id. a t 890. Furthe r, C am e l’ s right to e nforc e re je c tion of thele a s e did not ve st until the le a se wa s re

je c te d, a nd C am e l did not e nga ge in a ny be havior tha

t c ould support a finding of wa ive r a fte r the le a se wa s re je c te d. Se e id. at 889. B e c a u se C am e l did not wa ive any

“ right, privile ge , a dva

nta ge or be n e fit,” the ba

nkruptc y c ourt did not e rr in de c lining to a

pply wa ive r. Se e id. Ac c ordingly , the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not e rr in gra nting C am e l’ s m otion to lift the a utom at ic sta

y and de ny i ng J& M ’ s m otion to a ssum e the le a se nunc pro tunc . Fina lly , the ba

nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de c lining J& M ’ s ora l m o tion to c om

p e l a dditiona l disc ove ry

be c a use the disc ove ry

would ha ve ha d no be aring on the outc om e of J& M ’ s m otion to a ssum e . Se e J o hnson v . N

e i lson (In reSlatk

in) , 525 F.3d 805, 811 (9th C ir. 2008). AFFIRM E D.

3