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 : DORIS J. B ARR ETT; W ILLIAM B ARR ETT, De btors,

------------------------------ THE B ANK OF NEW

YOR K M ELLON, FKA The B ank of Ne w York, a s Truste e for the C e rtific a te holde rs of C W ALT, Inc ., Alte rna tive Loa

n Trust 2005-58, M ortga g e Pa ss-Through C e rtific a te s , Se rie s 2005-58,

Appe lla nt,
v. 2298 DR IFTW OOD TIDE TR

UST, Appe lle e . No. 19-60043 B AP No. 19-1086
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l La ffe rty III, Tay lor, a

n d Faris, B a

n kruptc y Judge s, Pre siding 

# FIL ED
OCT 28 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2020 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt The B ank of Ne w York M e llon (the “ B oNYM ” ) a ppe a ls the B ankruptc y

Appe l late Pane l of the Ninth C irc uit’ s (“ B AP” ) orde r dism issing the B oNYM ’ s a

ppe a l of a ba nkruptc y c ourt orde r for a

la c k of sta

nding. Sta

nding is a n issue of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo. Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC

v . Le h man C omme rc ial Pape r, Inc
. (

In re Palmdale

Hills Prop., LLC

), 654 F.3d 868, 873 (9th C ir. 2011). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d), a nd we a ffirm
. In Doris a nd W illia m B arre tt’ s c onsolida

t e d C ha pte r 7 ba nkruptc y proc e e ding, theba

nkruptc y c ourt gra nte d the m otion of a

c re ditor, 2298 Driftwood Tide Trust (the “ Trust” ), to re troa c tive ly annul the a

u t om a tic sta

y re late d to c e rta i n
re a l prope rty

of the de btors loc a te d in He n de rson, Ne va da
. 1 B oNYM , a c re ditor with a de e d of trust on the

prope rty , a

ppe a le d the ba

n kruptc y c ourt’ s re troa c tive
annulm e nt orde r to the B AP. R e ly i ng on Tille y v . Vuc ure v i c h (

In rePe c an Grov e

s

* * 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). 1 B e c a use the ba nkruptc y c ourt gra nte d the Trust’ s re troa c tive -annulm e nt m otion, theba

n kruptc y c ourt de nie d a s m oot B oNYM ’ s m o tion se e king a de te rm i nation tha

t the fore c losure sa le of the prope rty viola te d the a utom a tic sta

y . 2of Ariz. ), 951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th C ir. 1991), theB A P dism isse d B oNYM ’ s a ppe a l for a l a c k of sta nding. The B AP c orre c t ly

de te rm ine d tha

t B o N YM doe s not ha

ve inde pe nde nt sta nding to a ppe a l the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s gra

nt of the Trust’ s m otion for
re troa c tive re lie f from

the a u tom a tic sta

y . In this c irc uit, “ only

a ‘ pe rson
a ggrie ve d,’ tha

t is, som e one who is ‘ dire c tly and a dve rse l y

a ffe c te d pe c unia rily ’ by
a ba n kruptc y c ourt’ s orde r, ha s sta

nding to a ppe a l tha t orde r.” Hark

e y v . Grobste in ( In re Point C tr. Fin., Inc
. ), 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Fondille r v . Robe rtson (

In re Fondille r), 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th C ir. 1983)). Apply ing this sta

n da rd, we he ld in In rePe c an Grov e s of Arizona tha

t “ a c re ditor ha s no indepe nde nt sta

nding to a ppe a l a n a dve rse de c ision re ga

rding a viola tion of the a utom a t ic sta

y .” 951 F.2d a

t 245. W e re a sone d tha

t “ if the truste e doe s not se e k to e n forc e the prote c tions of thea utom a t ic sta

y , [the n] no othe r pa

rty m a y
c ha lle nge a c ts purporte dly in viola tion of thea

utom a tic sta

y ,” be c a u se 11 U.S.C
. § 362 “ is inte nde d sole ly

to be ne fit the de btor e sta te .” Id. Put diffe re ntly , be c a use the a utom a t ic -sta

y provisions of the

B ankruptc y

C o d e are inte nde d “ sole ly ” for the be ne fit of the de btor a

nd the de btor’ s e sta

te , id. , individual c re ditor’ s inte re sts do not “ fa ll within the

z one of inte re sts prote c te d by ” the a utom at ic -sta

y provisions of the B an kruptc y

C ode , Sie rra C

lub v . Trump , 929 F.3d 670, 700 (9th C ir. 2019)

3(quoting Le

x mark Int’l, Inc . v . Static

C ontrol C ompone nts, Inc
. , 572 U.S. 118, 129 (2014)). The B oNYM argue s unpe rsua s ive ly tha t the “ pe rson-a g grie ve d” te st should not be a p plie d, be c a

use c ourts “ ge ne ra lly

do not invoke

[the pe rson-a ggrie ve d] doc trine ‘ in insta

nc e s in whic h the a

ppe lla nt wa s the pa

rty tha t brought them otion
a t issue on a

ppe a l.’ ” In rePalmdale

Hills , 654 F.3d a

t 874 (quoting She rman v . SEC ( In re She rman ), 491 F.3d 948, 957 n.8 (9th C i r. 2007)). The B oNYM is
a ppe a ling theba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s gra

nt of theTrust’s m otion for re troa c tive re lie f from the a utom a tic sta

y . Thus, theB AP prope rly invoke d the “ pe rson-a ggrie ve d” te st, be c a use c ourts re gula

rly invoke the doc trine whe n the a ppe lla nt, like the B oNYM , “ is a pa

rty othe r tha n the m oving pa

rty .” Id. (quoting In reShe rman , 491 F.3d at 957 n.8). Ne xt, be c a

use the B oNYM wa s not a pa rty to the m o tion to re troa c tive ly
annul the a

utom atic sta

y , it m ust ha ve “ inde pe nde nt sta

nding to a ppe a l” the orde r. Se e In rePe c an Grov e

s of Ariz. , 951 F.2d a

t 245. Howe ve r, In rePe c a n Grov e s of Arizona fore c lose s tha

t possibility . The B oNYM , a se c ure d c re ditor, sim

ply doe s not ha ve “ inde pe nde nt sta

n ding to a ppe a l an a dve rse de c ision re ga

rding a viola tion of the a utom atic sta

y , ” be c a use the a utom a tic -sta

y provisions of the

B ankruptc y

4C ode are inte nde d “ sole ly ” to be ne fit the de btor a nd the de btor’ s e sta

te . Se e id. ; se e also Le x mark Int’l, Inc

. , 572 U.S. a

t 129. The B oNYM offe rs no c o m pe lling re a s on why In rePe c an Grov e s of Arizona ’ s holding should not a p ply he re . First, the B oNYM argue s tha t “ C o ngre ss inte nde d to prote c t both deb tors a nd c re ditors through the

a utom a t ic ba

nkruptc y sta y .” Howe v e r, in In re

Pe c an Grov e

s of Arizona , we re

je c te d the c re d itors’
argum e nt tha

t “ the purpose of the a

utom at ic sta

y is to prote c t both the de btor a nd
c re d itors,” spe c ific a lly

finding tha

t § 362 “ i s inte nde d sole ly to be ne fit the de btor
e sta te .” 951 F.2d a

t 245. The B oNYM ne x t a

rgue s tha t In rePe c a n Grov e

s of Arizona s hould be
c a bine d to its pre c ise fa c ts. Howe ve r, by its pla in te rm s In rePe c an Grov e s of Arizona c uts a

m uc h wide r swa

th, holding tha

t “ a c re d itor ha s no indepe nde nt sta nding to a ppe a l an a dve rse de c ision re ga rding a viola tion of thea

utom atic sta

y . ” Id. This holding wa s pre dic ate d, in pa rt, on the finding tha

t the a utom at ic sta

y is inte nde d “ sole ly ” for the be n e fit of the de btor a nd the de b tor’ s e sta

t e . Id. Thus,
a lthough the

B oNYM a tte m

pts to distinguish its fa

c ts from those of In re

Pe c an Grov e s of Arizona , it c a

nnot e sc a pe the c onc lusion tha

t the a utom a tic sta

y is not inte nde d to be ne fit individua l c re ditors. Se e id. Thus, the B oNYM la c ks sta nding,

5be c a

use its inte re sts do not fal l within the “ z one of inte re sts” inte nde d to be prote c te d by the a utom a tic -sta

y provisions of the

B an kruptc y

C ode
. Fina lly , the B oNYM ’ s atte m pts to c a s t doubt on the

c ontinue d va lidity

of In
re Pe c a n Grov e

s of Arizona are unsuc c e s sful. The c a se s ide ntifie d by the B oNYM do not unde rm ine or c a ll into que stion thec o ntinue d vita lity of In re Pe c an Grov e s of Arizona ’ s holding. For e x am ple , the B oNYM argue s tha t Sc hw artz v . Unite d State s ( In reSc hw artz ), 954 F.2d 569 (9th C i r. 1992), supports finding tha t
c re d itors ha

ve sta n ding to pursue

viola tions of thea

utom a tic sta

y . Howe v e r, the sole issue a ddre s se d in Sc hw artz wa s “ whe the r c re ditor viola tions of the B ankruptc y

C ode ’ s a utom a tic sta

y provision a

re void or sim

ply voida ble .” Id. a t 570–71. Thec ourt did not c onside r whe the r a c re d itor ha s sta

nding to e n forc e viola tions of thea

utom a tic sta

y . Sim p ly put, the c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t

“ C ongre ss inte n de d viola

tions of thea

utom a tic sta

y to be void ra

the r tha n voida b le ,” id. a t 571, doe s not unde rm ine or som e how a l te r the holding in In re Pe c an Grov e

s of Arizona . M ore ove r, the othe r Ninth C irc uit c a se s ide ntifie d by the B oNYM tha

t note tha t the a utom a tic sta

y be ne fits c re ditors a s we ll a s de btors do not unde rm ine or a l te r the holding in In rePe c an Grov e s of Arizona . Inde e d, those

6c ourts we re not a tte m pting to a sc e rta in the “ z one of inte re sts” prote c te d by 11 U.S.C . § 362 for a

ppe l late sta

nding purpose s . 2 In sum , for ba

nkruptc y a ppe lla te sta nding purpose s, the a

utom a tic -sta

y provisions in the

B ankruptc y

C ode are inte nde d “ s ole ly ” for the be ne fit of the de btor a nd the de btor’ s e sta

t e . S e e In re Pe c an Grov e

s of Ariz. , 951 a

t 245. The re fore , “ a

c re ditor ha s no indepe nde nt sta nding to a ppe a l a n a dve rse de c ision
re ga rding a viola tion of thea

utom a tic sta

y ,” id. , be c a

use the c re ditor’ s inte re sts do not “ fa ll within the

z one of inte re sts prote c te d by ” the a utom at ic sta

y -provisions of the B an kruptc y

C ode , se e Sie rra C

lub , 929 F.3d a

t 700 (quoting Le

x mark Int’l, Inc
. , 572 U.S. a

t 129). Thus, the

B oNYM doe s not ha

ve sta nding to e nforc e the

2 Also, c ontra

ry to the B o NYM ’ s a

rgum e nt, In reLe e ds , 589 B .R . 186 (B ankr. D. Ne v . 2018) is not “ dire c tly on point.”Aside from

the fa c t this c a se is re a d ily distinguisha

b le on its fa c ts, the B oNYM re lie s he a vily on Judge Naka ga wa ’ s sta te d c onc e rns tha

t the holding in In rePe c an Grov e s of Arizona“ h a s be e n m issta

te d,” be c a use the re is signific ant a

uthority supporting the “ proposition that the a utom a tic sta

y is inte nde d to be n e fit c re ditors, a s we ll a s de btors.” Id. a t 198 n.18, 200 n.22 (quoting In re Int’l Fore x of C al., Inc

. , 247 B .R . 284, 291 (B ankr. S.D. C a l . 2000)). Howe ve r, in the insta nt c a se , Judge Naka ga

wa re c o gniz e d tha

t, “ [a ] lthough this ba

nkruptc y c ourt ha [d] e xpre sse d a

diffe re nt vie w that the a utom a tic sta

y a lso prote c ts c re ditors [in In reLe e ds ] , the Ninth C i rc uit re c e ntly re i te ra te d its vie w in Pe c an Grov e s tha t the only pa rtie s with sta

n ding to obje c t to re troa c t ive re lie f from sta y are the de b tor a

nd the ba nkruptc y truste e .” In re Barre t t , No. 08-13570-M KN, 2019 W L 5884234, a t *8 n.15 (D. Ne v. M arc h 6, 2019) (unpublishe d) (c iting U.S. Bank , N .A. v . SFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC (

In re Pe trone ), 754 F. App’ x 590, 591 (9th C ir. 2019) (unpublishe d )). Thus, in light of his sta t e m e nts in theinsta

nt m a tte r, Judge Naka ga

wa ’ s c onc e rns in In reLe e ds are of dim inishe d im

port. 7a

utom a t ic sta

y a ga inst othe r c re ditors, to oppose the m o tion for re troa c tive
annulm e nt of the a

utom a tic sta

y , or to a ppe a l the ba

n kruptc y c ourt’ s gra

n t of the
re troa c tive annulm e nt m o tion. Se e In rePe c an Grov e s of Ariz. , 951 F.2d a

t 245. AFFIRM E D.

8