eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-09

William Gilliam v. George Robinson ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WILLIAM H. GILLIAM,                      No. 20-17165
Debtor.                            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00194-JMS-WRP
______________________________
WILLIAM H. GILLIAM,                             MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
GEORGE R. ROBINSON,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 13 debtor William H. Gilliam appeals pro se from the district
*
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). Gilliam’s requests for oral
argument, set forth in his briefs, are denied.
court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders regarding certain real
property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the
district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same
standards of review applied by the district court. Suncrest Healthcare Ctr. LLC v.
Omega Healthcare Invs., Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare Corp.),
    431 F.3d 685
    ,
687 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not err by granting Robinson’s motions for a
determination that the real property is not property of the bankruptcy estate and for
relief from the automatic stay, or by denying Gilliam’s motion to turn over the
property, after concluding that Gilliam has no ownership interest in the real
property. See Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.),
    252 F.3d 1039
    ,
1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for orders granting relief from an
automatic stay); Tighe v. Celebrity Home Entm’t Inc. (In re Celebrity Home
Entm’t, Inc.),
    210 F.3d 995
    , 997 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for bankruptcy
court’s interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code); see also 11 U.S.C. § 542
(governing turnover of property of the estate); In re Straightline Invs., Inc.,
    525 F.3d 870
    , 876 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e accept findings of fact made by the
bankruptcy court unless these findings leave the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gilliam’s
2                                    20-17165
motion for reconsideration because Gilliam failed to demonstrate any basis for
relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60
applicable to bankruptcy cases); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.
ACandS, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review
and grounds for relief under Rule 59 or 60).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gilliam’s motion to accept the late-filed reply brief (Docket Entry No. 15) is
granted. The Clerk will file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 14.
Gilliam’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                       20-17165