NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS, 

INC.,

Debtor.

 

WALTER L. WAGNER; et al.,

Appellants,

 v.

UST - UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, 

RENO; WORLD BOTANICAL 

GARDENS, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 15-60037

BAP No. 14-1246

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Dunn, Jury and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-60037 

Walter L. Wagner, Calvin Andrus, and Douglas Lee appeal pro se from the

judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy 

court’s order converting the debtor’s bankruptcy case from a case under chapter 11 

of the Bankruptcy Code to one under chapter 7. 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 BAP correctly limited the scope of the appeal to the bankruptcy court’s 

conversion order because appellants failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s sale 

order within 14 days of entry as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See 11 

U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court 

must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Anderson v. 

Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he untimely 

filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the 

bankruptcy court’s order.”); see also Sulmeyer v. Karbach Enters. (In re Exennium, 

Inc.), 715 F.2d 1401, 1402-03 (9th Cir. 1983) (bankruptcy court order approving 

sale of property of the bankruptcy estate deemed final).

The BAP properly determined that appellants lack standing to challenge the 
3 15-60037 

bankruptcy court’s conversion order due to inadequate notice because appellants 

concede that they received notice of the hearing. Appellants’ appeal is based on an 

alleged lack of notice to other parties but appellants lack standing to assert the 

legal rights of others and they provide no authority for their assertion that the 

alleged lack of notice to others deprived the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction. See 

Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 289-90 (2008) 

(prudential standing requires that a party must assert its own legal rights and may 

not assert the legal rights of another). 

We do not consider the merits of the bankruptcy court’s conversion order 

because appellants do not challenge the substance of the order in their opening 

brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Because we affirm based on appellants’ lack of standing to prosecute the 

appeal, we do not consider Wagner’s challenge to the BAP’s order dismissing him

as an appellant. 

AFFIRMED.