eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-12

Leilani Rickert v. Specialized Loan Serv., LLC ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     DEC 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LEILANI HOPE RICKERT,                        No. 21-60003
Debtor,                          BAP No. 20-1100
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
LEILANI HOPE RICKERT,
Appellant,
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC;
et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Brand, Gan, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before:        WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 13 debtor Leilani Hope Rickert appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
*
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).
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
dismissing her adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of
review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New
Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),
    564 F.3d 1088
    , 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Rickert’s adversary proceeding
under the law of the case doctrine because Rickert’s claims against defendant
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (“SLS”) were previously litigated in Rickert’s
bankruptcy proceeding, and the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of SLS was
affirmed by the BAP. See Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
    146 F.3d 1088
    ,
1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Under the doctrine of ‘law of the case,’ a court is generally
precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same
court, or a higher court in the identical case.”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Tracht Gut, LLC v. L.A. County Treasurer & Tax
Collector (In re Tracht Gut, LLC),
    836 F.3d 1146
    , 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard
of review).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by considering Rickert’s
prior bankruptcy court proceedings, and consideration of those proceedings did not
convert SLS’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for
2                                    21-60003
summary judgment. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
    250 F.3d 668
    , 688-89 (9th Cir.
2001) (setting forth standard of review for decision to take judicial notice and
describing material that a court may consider when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion).
Contrary to Rickert’s contention, the bankruptcy court was not required to
hold a hearing prior to granting SLS’s motion to dismiss. See Novak v. United
States,
    795 F.3d 1012
    , 1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (due process does not require a court to
hold a hearing on a party’s motion to dismiss). We reject as without merit
Rickert’s contentions regarding defects in SLS’s motion to dismiss.
Rickert’s motion to supplement the reply brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is
granted. All other pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                    21-60003