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 : NATIONS FIR ST C APITAL, LLC ,

De btor,

------------------------------ JEAN G. DEC EM B RE, DB A Ale Transporta

tion, Appe lla nt,
v. NATIONS FIR ST C APITAL, LLC ,

Appe lle e . No. 20-60037 B AP No. 19-1201
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Gan, La ffe rty

III, and B rand, B ankruptc y Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 11, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
MAY14 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , M ILLER , C irc uit Judge , and RESTANI, * **

Judge
. Je an De c e m

bre a ppe a ls from

a de c ision by

the B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l (“ B AP” ) re ve rsing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s va c atur of a

n orde r disa llowing De c e m b re ’ s c la im

a ga inst debtor Na

tions First C a

pita l (“ NFC ” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 158(d)(1), a nd we a ffirm
. I W e re vie w the B AP’ s de c ision denovo a n d m a y a ffirm “ on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord.” C al. Franc h ise Tax

Bd. v . K e ndall (In re

J one s) , 657 F.3d 921, 924 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d). “ [A] pply [ing] the sa m e sta nda rd of re v ie w tha

t the B AP a

pplie d to the ba

nkruptc y c o urt’ s ruling,” Brac e v . Spe ie r (In reBrac e

) , 979 F.3d 1228, 1232 (9th C ir. 2020), we a sk whe the r the ba nkruptc y
c ourt a buse d its disc re tion whe n it de nie d De c e m bre re lie f unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure (“ R

ule ” ) 60(b)(1), but gra

n te d him re lie f unde r R

ule 60(b)(6). Se e Phillips v . Gilman (In re

Gilman) , 887 F.3d 956, 963 (9th C i r. 2018) (re vie w ing ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde r granting R

ule 60(b) re lie f for an a

b use of disc re tion). The ba nkruptc y c o urt a buse s its disc re tion if it doe s “ not ide ntify the c o rre c t le ga l rule .” USAA Fe d

. Sav . Bank v . Thac k

e r (In re Tay lor) , 599 F.3d 880, 887–88 (9th

* * * The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judgefor the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion. 2C ir. 2010). W e a c c e p t the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings “ unle ss [the y ] le ave the d e finite an d firm

c o nvic tion tha

t a m ista ke ha s be e n

c om m i tte d.” K

han v

. Barton (In re

K han) , 846 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th C ir. 2017); se e also United Stude nt Funds, Inc

. v . W

y lie(In re W

y lie ) , 349 B .R
. 204, 211 (B .A.P. 9th C ir. 2006) (“ The ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings re ga rding se rvic e of proc e ss a nd othe r doc um e nts a

re re vie we d

for c le ar e rror.” ).

II The B AP prope rly

he ld tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly

de c line d to gra

n t De c e m b re re lie f from

the orde r disa llowing his c la i m (“ D i sa llowa

nc e Orde r” ) unde r R ule 60(b)(1), but e rre d in gra nting him re lie f from

tha t orde r unde r R

ule 60(b)(6). Se e 1 1 U.S.C . § 502(j) (“ A c la im tha t ha s be e n a llowe d or disa llowe d
m ay be re c onside re d for c a

use .” ); Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 9024 (providing tha t R ule 60
a pplie s to m otions for re lie f from a judgm e nt or orde r in a

ba nkruptc y c a s e ); se e also W y lie , 349 B .R . at 209 (e xpla ining tha t m otions for re c onside ra tion of a c la im disa llowa nc e file d “ a fte r the 10-da

y a ppe a l pe riod ha s e xpire d” are “ subje c t to the
c onstra ints of [R

ule ] 60(b) a s inc orporat e d by [B ankruptc y ] R

u le 9024” ).

3A

The ba nkruptc y c o urt prope rly

de c line d to c onc lude that De c e m bre ’ s fa ilure to tim e ly re spond to NFC ’ s c la i m

obje c tion re sulte d from

“ e xc usa ble ne g le c t” within them e aning of R

ule 60(b)(1). Se e Fe d. R . C i v. P. 60(b)(1) (pe rm itting a
c ourt to re lie ve a

pa rty from an orde r upon a

showing of “m ista

ke , ina dve rte nc e , surprise , or e xc usa

b le ne gle c t” ). De c e m

bre ha s not de m onstra

t e d tha t a ny of the following fa c tors fa

vor R ule 60(b)(1) re lie f on the ba sis of e xc usa ble ne g le c t: “ the da nge r of pre

judic e to the de b tor, the le ngth of the de la y and its potentia l im

pa c t on judic ia l proc e e d ings, the re a son for the de la y , inc luding whe the r it wa s within the
re a s ona ble c ontrol of them ova

nt, a nd whe the r the m ova

nt a c te d in good fa ith.” Iopa v . Saltc huk

-Young Brothe rs, Ltd. , 916 F.3d 1298, 1301 (9th C i r. 2019) (pe r
c uriam ) (quoting Pione e r Inv

. Se rv s. C o. v . Brunsw ic k

Assoc s. Ltd. P’ship , 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The le ngth of thede la

y be twe e n e ntry

of the Disa l lowa

nc e Orde r and De c e m b re ’ s re q u e st for re lie f from

tha t orde r— roughly two m onths—

wa s substa ntia l. Se eHarv e

st v . C a s tro , 531 F.3d 737, 747 (9th C ir. 2008) (c onc luding that 64-da y de la y wa s “ substa

ntia l” and c ut a ga inst gra

nting R ule 60(b)(1) re lie f). Additionally , the e xpla

nation tha t De c e m bre ’ s c ounse l provide d for the de la y doe s not de m onstra

te a ge n uine , good fa ith m ista

ke . The proof of se rvic e for the
4obje c tion a

nd notic e of he a

ring re fle c ts tha

t NFC prope rly

m a i le d those doc um e nts to c o unse l’ s la

w firm (c onsiste n t with De c e m

bre ’ s re que st in his proof of c la im ) and De c e m

bre ’ s pe rsona l a ddre ss. 1 C o unse l’ s ba re a sse rtions tha

t he did not se e
and “ doubts tha

t his offic e re c e ive d” this m a il do not overc om e the pre sum ption of
re c e ipt. S e e Moody v . Buc k num (In re

Buc k n um ), 951 F.2d 204, 207 (9th C ir. 1991) (pe r c uriam ). Although c ounse l m ay have be e n una

ware of the c la im obje c tion be c a

use of ga rde n-va rie ty ne glige nc e on his or his staff’ s pa rt, the re is no
e xpla nation to tha

t e ffe c t in there c ord. De c e m bre ha s a lso fa ile d to e xpla in how the p re judic e fa c tor favors a

finding of e xc usa

ble ne gle c t. Se e Iopa , 916 F.3d a t 1301. The B AP prope rly

c onc lude d tha

t the ba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly

de nie d R ule 60(b)(1) re lie f. C

ompare Trac ht Gut, LLC

v . Los Ange le

s C nty . Tre asure r

& Tax C olle c tor (In re

Trac ht Gut, LLC

) , 836 F.3d 1146, 1155 (9th C ir. 2016) (a ffirm ing de nia l of R

ule 60(b)(1) re lie f whe re the m ova nt fa ile d “ to ide ntify

any insta n c e of
ne gle c t tha

t wa s e xc usa

ble ” ) w ith Gilman , 887 F.3d a t 963–64 (a ffirm ing gra

nt of R ule 60(b)(1) re lie f whe re c ounse l e xpla i ne d tha t she fa ile d to re spond to a n

1 On a ppe a l, De c e m

bre take s issue with thefa c t tha t NFC a ddre sse d the m a il to “ Je an G. De c e m

bre c /o C rowle y

& C rowle y ,” ra the r tha

n to C rowle y

him se lf. NFC a ddre sse d the m a il in them anne r that De c e m bre re que ste d in his proof of c la im . In a

ny e ve nt, be c a

u s e De c e m

bre did not ra ise this issue be low, we ne e d not c onside r it. Se e Hillis v . He ine man , 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2010). 5obje c tion “

b e c a use of a c a le nda ring e rror,” “ he r se c re ta

ry ’ s disa bility ,” and the fa c t that she ha d “ too m any

ba l ls in thea i r” ).

B The B AP did not e rr in holding tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt should ha

ve de c line d to va c ate the Disa llowa nc e Orde r unde r R

ule 60(b)(6). Unde r that c atc ha ll provision, a

c ourt m ay re lie ve a

pa rty from an orde r for “ any

othe r re a son tha

t justifie s re lie f,” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)(6), but only “ to pre ve nt m a

n i fe st injustic e ”
and “ only whe re e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s pre ve nte d a

pa rty from ta king tim e l y
a c tion.” Zuric h Am. Ins. C o. v . Int’l Fibe rc om, Inc
. (In reInt’l Fibe rc om, Inc .) , 503 F.3d 933, 941 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Unite d State s v . W ashington , 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2005)); s e ealso De l ay v . Gordon , 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th C ir. 2007) (R

ule 60(b)(6) “ a

pplie s only

whe n the re a son for gra

nting re lie f is not
c ove re d by

any of the othe r re a sons se t forth in R ule 60.” ). De c e m

bre did not de m onstra

te suc h c irc um sta

nc e s. The ba

nkruptc y c ourt im

prope rly grante d re lie f on the sole ground tha

t De c e m bre ha d a “ pote ntia l m e ritorious de fe nse ” to NFC ’ s
c la im obje c tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Signe d Pe r

s. C h e c k N o. 730 of Yurban S. Me s le , 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla ining tha t a c ourt “ m ust c onside r thre e fa c t ors,” any

of whic h, if m e t, is a lone “ suffic ie nt re a son for the distric t c ourt to re fuse to se t a s ide the de fa ult” (quota

tion m arks om itte d )).
6AFFIRM E D.

7