NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WORLD BOTANICA L 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, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 ca se 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 bankrup tcy 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 bankrup tcy 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 En ters. ( 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 the3 15

- 60037

bankruptcy court’s co nversion order due to inadequate notice because a ppellants

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

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

legal rights of others and th ey 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 require s 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 Padge tt 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.