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 : FR B , INC ., De

btor, TJG/ SUM M ITT DEVELOPM ENT C ORPOR ATION, Appe lla

nt, v. JAM ES F. R IGB Y, Jr., Appe lle e . No. 12-60053 B AP No. 12-1013 M EM O R ANDUM *

In re : FR B , INC ., De

btor, TJG/ SUM M ITT DEVELOPM ENT C ORPOR ATION, Appe lla

nt, v. No. 12-60054 B AP No. 12-1068 

# FIL ED SEP 10 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.JAM ES F. R IGB Y, Jr.,

Appe lle e . Appe a l from the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Hollowe ll, M arke ll, a

nd Jury , B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 26, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s . TJG/Sum m i tt De ve lopm e nt C orporat ion (“ Sum m itt” ) a ppe a ls from

the B ankruptc y

Appe l late Pane l ’ s (“ B AP” ) orde rs dismi ssing its a p pe a ls be c a

use of Sum m itt’ s c orporate suspe nsion a nd de ny ing its motion for re c onside ra tion a fte r the c orporate powe rs we re re v i ve d . Unde r the c i rc um s ta

nc e s, the B AP c orre c t ly

dism isse d Sum

m itt’ s a ppe a ls. Traub C o. v . C offe eBre ak

Se rv ., Inc . , 425 P.2d 790, 792 (1967) (Unde r C a l ifornia la w, “ a suspe nde d c orporation not shown to ha ve be e n re i nsta

te d la c ks the right or c a pa c ity to de fe nd a

n a c tion or to a

ppe a l from

an a dve rse de c ision.” ). W e ne e d not a ddre s s whe the r the B AP a buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing Sum m itt’ s m otion for re c o nside ra tion unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b); the ultim ate re sult would be the sa

m e be c a use Sum m itt’ s c la im s c annot be susta ine d.

2W e re je c t Sum m itt’ s c h a lle nge to the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. Theba

nkruptc y c ourt ha d jurisdic tion ove r the e sta te of FRB , Inc ., (“ FRB ” ) be c a

use FRB file d a

volunta ry pe tition for ba

nkruptc y . S

e e 28 U.S.C . § 1334(e ). The ba nkruptc y c o urt did not a

b use its disc re tion in finding tha t e q uita ble princ iple s pre c lude d Sum m i tt, a t this la t e sta ge and a fte r a c tive pa rtic ipat ion in the ba nkruptc y proc e e dings, from

c onte sting Ja

m e s F. R igby ’ s a

uthority to file the pe tition on FR

B ’ s be ha lf. Se e Rude be c k v . Sande r son (In re N onpare il C

onsol. C oppe r C o.) , 227 F. 575, 578 (9th C ir. 1915) (“ [T] he y c o uld not sta

nd idly by and pe rm it the a dm inistra

tion of thee s tate to proc e e d in the ba nkruptc y c ourt until som e ste p wa s ta

ke n tha t did not me e t the ir a

pprova l. W

he the r the pe tition in ba nkruptc y wa s file d by c o m

pe te nt a uthority or not, it wa s the duty

of the pe titione rs to m ove a ga inst it prom ptly , if at a ll, a

nd this they

fa ile d to do.” ); se e also B e aty

v . Se l inge r (In reBe aty

) , 306 F.3d 914, 921 (9th C ir. 2002) (re vie wing a pplic a tion of la c h e s doc trine for an a buse of disc re tion). To the e xte nt the issue is not m oot, we a lso a ffirm the orde r a

uthoriz ing the sa le of the C a lifornia

prope rty . AFFIRM E D.

3