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 : ANTIONETTE W YNE THOM AS LOVE, De btor,

______________________________ ANTIONETTE W

YNE THOM AS LOVE, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PAC IFIC A SEAC OVE, LP,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-55612 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-01362-PA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 7, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , R

AW L INSON, and HUR

W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JUL 23 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Antione tte Thom a s Love (Love ) a ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s dismissa l of a dve rsary proc e e dings brought a ga inst Appe lle e Pa c ific a Se a c ove LP (Pa c i fic a ), a sse rting viola tion of the
a utom at ic sta

y whe n Pa c ific a

e vic te d Love during the c ourse of he r bankruptc y proc e e dings. Love c o nte nds tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt e rre d in re ly ing on our de c ision in Ede n Plac e

, LLC v . Shole m Pe rl (In re

Pe rl) , 811 F.3d 1120 (9th C ir. 2016). In tha

t c a se , we he l d tha

t e xe c ution of a writ of posse ssion a fte r unla wful de ta ine r proc e e dings e xtinguishe d the oc c upa nt’ s le ga l a

nd e quita b le posse s sory inte re s ts in theprope rty . S e e id. at 1127-28. Ne ve rthe le ss, Love m a inta ins tha t he r ba nkruptc y e sta te wa s not dive ste d of he r te na nc y inte re s t in thefore c lose d
re side ntia l prope rty . W e are bound by

our prior de c ision in In rePe r l , whic h the ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly a pplie d. Se eUnite d State

s v . Adk ins , 883 F.3d 1207, 1214 (9th C ir. 2018) (e xpla ining tha

t “ we are bound to follow prior pre c e de nt unle ss it is overrule d by this C ourt sitting e

n ba nc or by the Supre m e C ourt” ) (c ita tion omi tte d). Although Love a sse rts tha

t she re ta ine d a

posse ssory

inte re st in thefore c lose d re nta l prope rty ba se d on va

rious sta te proc e dura l prote c tions a nd he r status a s a re nte r, “ unde r C a lifornia la w, e ntry of judgm e nt a

nd a writ of posse ssion following unla wful de ta ine r proc e e dings e xtinguishe s all othe r le ga l a nd e q uita ble posse ssory

inte re sts
2in the re a l prope rty at issue .” In rePe rl , 811 F.3d a t 1127-28 (c ita

tion omitte d) (e m pha sis a dde d ). “ [W ] he the r [the de btor] ha d a c tua l posse ssion of the prope rty whe n [she ] file d for ba

nkruptc y ha s no be aring on whe the r [she ] ha d a c ogniz a ble posse s sory

inte re st in theprope rty . ” Id. at 1128. W e re c ogniz e d tha t “ no oc c upa

nt of the pre m ise s re ta i n s any posse ssory

inte re st of a ny

k ind following servic e of the writ of posse ssion.” Id. at 1129 (e m pha se s a dde d). B e c a

use Pa c ific a

wa s “ the pre v a i ling pa

rty in the unla

w ful de ta ine r proc e e ding,” it obta ine d “ supe rior titleto the p rope rty , inc luding theright to im m e diate posse ssion.” Id. at 1130 (c ita tion
om i tte d). The ba

nkruptc y c ourt prope rly

dism isse d the a dve rsary

proc e e dings be c a use ne i the r Love nor he r bankruptc y e sta te re ta ine d a

ny inte re st in the prope rty . Se e id. AFFIRM E D.

3