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 : JEFFREY A. C LAR K; JODENE M . C LAR

K, De

btors, JEFFR EY A. C LAR

K; JODENE M . C LAR

K, Appe lla

nts,
v. M AR TIN STR

AND; GAB R IELLE STR

AND, Appe lle e s, UST- UNITED STATES TR USTEE, SAN FER

NANDO, No. 12-60051 B AP No. 11-1322
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kirsc he r, Hollowe ll, a

nd M arke l l, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
FEB 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : SC HR OEDER and C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C OGAN, Distric t Judge
. ** Je ffre y and Jode n e C la

rk a ppe a l from

a de c ision by

the B an kruptc y Appe l lat e Pane l re ve rsing a n orde r by

the ba nkruptc y c ourt de ny ing a

m otion by M artin a n d Ga brie lle Strand to re ope n the C l arks’ C ha pte r 7 ba nkruptc y c a s e . W e
a ffirm the B A P de c i sion. This C ourt c onduc ts de nov o re vie w of a B AP de c ision. In reBurne tt , 435 F.3d 971, 975 (9th C ir. 2002). This me a n s tha t we re vie w the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n a

ba nkruptc y c a se for a

buse of disc re tion. In re De Ville , 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th C ir. 2004); In reW e ine r , 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th C ir. 1998). The B AP wa s c orre c t tha

t the ba nkruptc y c ourt a pplie d the wrong sta

nda rd to the m otion to re ope n. “ [R ] e o pe ning a c a se is ty pic a lly m iniste ria l and pre se nts only a ‘ na rrow range of issue s .’ ” In reLope z , 283 B .R . 22, 26 (9th C ir. B AP 2002) (quoting In reMe n k , 241 B .R . 896, 916-17 (9th C ir. B AP 1999)). Inquirie s into the m e rits of the unde rly ing c la im are ina ppropria te . Staffe r v . Pre dov ic h (In re Staffe r ) , 306 F.3d 967, 972 (9th C ir. 2002).

** The Honora

ble B rian M . C oga

n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion. 2The ba sis upon whic h the ba nkruptc y c ourt c onc lude d tha

t the Stran ds la c ke d sta nding wa s not e ntire ly

c le ar. At the outse t

of the he aring, the c ourt sta te d that the Stran ds la c ke d sta

nding be c a

use the y ha d dism isse d the ir c la im in sta te
c ourt, but a s the B AP de c ision e xpla ine d, tha t dism issa l wa s without pre judic e and did not e xtinguish the ir c la i m . The C la rks ha ve offe re d othe r argum e nts why the y be lie ve the Strands should not be tre a te d a s a

“ pa rty in inte re st” unde r Fe d. R
. B ankr. P. 5010, suc h

a s tha t the c l a im

is ba rre d by la c he s or the running of the lim ita tions pe riod, but no c ourt ha s a djudic a te d those argum e n ts. The C la rks m ight be right in a

rguing tha

t the Strands’ c la im s a

re ba rre d or la c k m e rit, but suc h a n inquiry is ina ppropria te a t this stage . Se e May a v . C e nte x C orp. , 658 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [ t] he jurisdic tiona l que stion of sta nding pre c e de s, a

nd doe s not re quire , a

na ly sis of the m e rits” ). Ea c h side sha ll be ar its own c osts of a p pe a l. AFFIRM E D and RE M ANDE D
.

3