Yan Sui V.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
In re: YAN SUI, No. 13-55956
Debtor, D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00519-MWF
RICHARD ALAN MARSHACK, MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PEI-YU YANG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Pei-Yu Yang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in an
*
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).
adversary proceeding brought by the bankruptcy trustee Richard Alan Marshack
alleging that debtor Yan Sui fraudulently transferred his interest in real property to
Yang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo,
Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary adjudication on the trustee’s
fraudulent transfer claims under California Civil Code §§ 3439.04 and 3439.05
because Yang admitted that Sui transferred his interest in the real property to her
without receiving anything in exchange for the transfer and did so with the intent
to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, and because Yang did not bring a motion
to withdraw her admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 36(b) (“A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established
unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”);
Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621 (“Unanswered requests for admissions may be relied on as
the basis for granting summary judgment.”); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7036
(applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 in bankruptcy adversary
proceedings).
Yang’s contentions that the requests for admissions were defective and
invalid, that the trustee’s complaint was invalid and untimely, and that the
bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding are
2 13-55956
unpersuasive.
We deny all pending motions and requests, including Sui’s motion to
intervene, filed on February 18, 2014.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-55956