Case Name: IN RE: Richard Stephen KVASSAY, Debtor, Richard Stephen Kvassay, Appellant, v. Robert V. Kvassay, Trustee of the Kvassay Family Trust dated 02/26/1993; Russakow, Green & Tan, LLP, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-15
Citations: 652 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 14-60041
Parties: IN RE: Richard Stephen KVASSAY, Debtor, Richard Stephen Kvassay, Appellant, v. Robert V. Kvassay, Trustee of the Kvassay Family Trust dated 02/26/1993; Russakow, Green & Tan, LLP, Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 558
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
IN RE: Richard Stephen KVASSAY, Debtor, Richard Stephen Kvassay, Appellant, v. Robert V. Kvassay, Trustee of the Kvassay Family Trust dated 02/26/1993; Russakow, Green & Tan, LLP, Appellees.
No. 14-60041
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2016 Pasadena, California
FILED June 15, 2016
Troy A. Stewart, Troy A. Stewart, Law Office, Glendale, CA, for Appellant.
Richard R. Clements, Law Offices of Richard R. Clements, P.C., Long Beach, CA, for Appellees.
Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Richard Kvassay (Richard) appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) to affirm the bankruptcy court's dismissal of Richard's adversary proceeding against Robert Kvassay as trustee of the Kvassay Family Trust (Robert). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and we affirm.
Richard's complaint alleged that Robert violated the bankruptcy court's automatic stay after Richard filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On July 3, 2013, Robert electronically filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and served the motion on Richard. On July 15, Robert received a Notice to Filer of Error and/or Deficient Document from the bankruptcy court notifying him that his motion had been filed under an incorrect event code and advising him to re-file the document under the correct code. Robert re-filed the motion the following day on July 16. Richard then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on July 30,2013.
The bankruptcy court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend because: (1) the FAC was untimely;. (2) Richard did not oppose the motion to dismiss; and (3) the original complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The BAP agreed and affirmed.
"A bankruptcy court's decision to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo, as is its interpretation of the bankruptcy code." Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 633 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2011) (citation omitted).
The bankruptcy court did not erroneously dismiss Richard's adversary action. The FAC was untimely. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015, which governs amended and supplemental pleadings in bankruptcy adversary proceedings, adopts Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 15. FRCP 15 allows a party to "amend its pleading once as a matter of course within," "21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f)." Richard contends that the 21-day deadline started running on July 16, 2013, when Robert refiled his motion to dismiss. FRCP 15 does not state "21 days after filing," but instead "21 days after service." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. And nothing in the Bankruptcy Code,' the accompanying Bankruptcy Rules, or the local bankruptcy rules requires parties to re-serve motions that must be re-filed due to an electronic filing error. Richard does not contend that he was not properly served on July 3, 2013. The FAC, which was filed on July 30, was untimely and could not be filed as a matter of course without leave of court.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.