Carlos Porras v. Kit Parker ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CARLOS E. PORRAS, No. 18-16785
Debtor. D.C. No. 5:18-cv-00344-EJD
______________________________
CARLOS E. PORRAS, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
KIT PARKER; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Carlos E. Porras appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s denial of his second motion for sanctions for violation of the
*
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).
automatic stay. 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. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co.
v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir.
2012). We may affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision on any ground fairly
supported by the record. In re Warren, 568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
Denial of Porras’s second motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic
stay was not an abuse of discretion because Porras failed to demonstrate that such
relief was warranted. See In re Miller, 397 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The
automatic stay does not apply to proceedings initiated against the debtor if the
proceedings are initiated in the same bankruptcy court where the debtor’s
bankruptcy proceedings are pending.”); In re Teerlink Ranch Ltd, 886 F.2d 1233,
1237 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The stay does not operate against the court with jurisdiction
over the bankrupt.”); see also Miller v. Cardinale (In re DeVille), 361 F.3d 539,
547 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).
Contrary to Porras’s contention, the conversion of his bankruptcy case from
Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 did not create a new automatic stay. See In re Ramirez,
188 B.R. 413, 416 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (“The great weight of authority holds that
the automatic stay provisions of § 362 are not triggered by conversion.”).
2
Porras’s request to strike portions of the excerpts of record, set forth in the
reply brief, is denied.
Appellees’ request for costs and fees, set forth in their answering brief, is
denied without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
3