Kathleen Ray v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KATHLEEN LYNNE RAY, No. 16-60088
Debtor. BAP No. 15-1137
______________________________
KATHLEEN LYNNE RAY, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Lafferty, Dore, and Kirscher, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kathleen Lynne Ray appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
*
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).
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to
extend the time to file an opposition to appellee’s motion for relief from the
automatic stay and her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision
without deference to the BAP. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v.
Slyman (In re Slyman), 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s request
for a continuance to file her opposition to appellee’s motion for relief from the
automatic stay because Ray failed to show that she would suffer any harm as a
result of the denial. See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less,
Situated in Mariposa Cty., Cal., 791 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth
standard of review and factors utilized for reviewing denials of requested
continuances (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s motion
for reconsideration because Ray failed to comply with the local bankruptcy court
rules. See Bankr. D. Nev. R. 9014(a)(1) (explaining that all motions “shall be set
so that at least twenty-eight (28) days’ notice of the hearing of the motion is
given”).
We reject as without merit Ray’s contention that the order on appeal must be
reversed due to the appearance of impropriety.
2 16-60088
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ray’s motion to stay appellate proceedings (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-60088