eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-12

Shmuel Erde v. Theodor Bodnar ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    DEC 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SHMUEL ERDE,                                 No. 19-60063
Debtor.                          BAP No. 19-1023
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
SHMUEL ERDE,
Appellant,
v.
THEODOR NICKOLAS BODNAR; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Taylor, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before:        WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 11 debtor Shmuel Erde 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”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
denying his motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). We
have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review de novo the bankruptcy
court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Decker v.
Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.),
    617 F.3d 1102
    , 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Erde’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion because
the issues set forth in the motion were actually litigated and decided in prior
actions among the parties that resulted in final adjudication on the merits, or could
have been raised in the prior actions. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60
applicable to bankruptcy cases); Howard v. City of Coos Bay,
    871 F.3d 1032
    ,
1040-42 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirements for issue preclusion under federal law);
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
    244 F.3d 708
    , 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001)
(requirements for claim preclusion under federal law); see also Reyn’s Pasta Bella,
LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
    442 F.3d 741
    , 745 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for
application of issue preclusion and claim preclusion).
We reject as without merit Erde’s contention that the BAP erred by denying
his request for publication.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                       19-60063