Singh v. Cusick ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: RAJ SINGH, No. 13-60043
Debtor, BAP No. 11-1700
RAJ SINGH, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
DAVID PAUL CUSICK, Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Jury, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Raj Singh appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment in an adversary interpleader
action seeking a determination regarding disbursement of proceeds of a tax refund
check. 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 granted judgment on the pleadings against
Singh because his answer made no claim to the funds at issue in the interpleader
action. See Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)
(setting forth standard of review, and explaining that “[a] judgment on the
pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving
party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law”). Because judgment on the pleadings was proper as to Singh, we do not
consider Singh’s arguments about how the funds should have been distributed.
Singh’s contentions that Appellees violated bankruptcy laws, and regarding
judicial bias, mootness, jurisdiction, and agency standing, are unpersuasive.
We do not consider Singh’s contentions that the default against Karen Singh
was entered in error because Singh does not challenge the bankruptcy court’s
determination that Singh lacks standing to challenge the default.
2 13-60043
We do not consider Singh’s arguments to the extent they relate to issues
outside the scope of the adversary proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-60043