Victor Rivera v. Arcpe 1, LLP ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: VICTOR ORLANDO RIVERA, No. 21-60001
Debtor, BAP No. 20-1024
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR ORLANDO RIVERA,
Appellant,
v.
ARCPE 1, LLP, AKA ARCPE Holding,
LLC,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Faris, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
*
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). Rivera’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
Chapter 7 debtor Victor Orlando Rivera appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of
relief from the automatic stay to appellee ARCPE 1, LLP. 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 did not abuse its discretion by granting ARPCE 1,
LLP’s motion for relief from the automatic stay because the record supports such
relief and ARCPE 1, LLP established that it had a colorable claim to the property
at issue. See 11 U.S.C § 362(d)(4) (setting forth requirements for in rem relief
from the automatic stay); Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128
(9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “a party
seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property
at issue”).
We reject as without merit Rivera’s contention that the BAP retaliated
against him.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-60001