Court Opinion

ID: 9396162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:32.41846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.530060
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MAY 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD,                     No. 21-60059

                   Debtor,                         BAP No. 21-1074

------------------------------
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
JOANNIE TANG-FOK,

                   Appellant,

  v.

E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Chapter 7
Trustee; LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD,

                   Appellees.

                            Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                              Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
                 Gan, Taylor, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                                  Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:        BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

       Joannie Tang-Fok appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Linda Marie

Rutherford, a Chapter 7 debtor, discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a decision of the BAP,

and we review the underlying bankruptcy court decision applying the same

standard of review the BAP did. In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.

2021). We affirm.

      The bankruptcy court properly granted a discharge to Rutherford because

Tang-Fok failed to file a complaint objecting to the discharge of Rutherford’s debt

or seeking to except specific debt from discharge. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S.

443, 448 n.3 (2004) (noting that time restrictions to file a complaint objecting to

discharge of any debt under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) or particular debts under 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(c) are “practical[ly] identi[cal]”); In re Kennerley, 995 F.2d 145, 146 (9th

Cir. 1993) (explaining that bankruptcy rules impose strict time limits for filing

complaints to determine dischargeability of debts).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    21-60059