Madeline Davis v. Bank of America, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MADELINE YVETTE DAVIS, No. 17-60058
Debtor. BAP No. 16-1430
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
MADELINE YVETTE DAVIS,
Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Kurtz, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Madeline Yvette Davis appeals pro se from the judgment
*
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).
of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
dismissing Davis’s adversary proceeding. 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 dismissed Davis’s adversary proceeding
because Davis lacks standing to pursue claims that are property of the bankruptcy
estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 323; Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447,
1451 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994) (Chapter 7 trustee is the representative of the debtor’s
estate, and therefore the only party with standing to administer estate assets);
Canatella v. Towers (In re Alcala), 918 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir. 1990) (causes of
action which accrued before a Chapter 7 petition is filed are part of the estate
vested in the trustee).
To the extent Davis seeks to appeal the order granting relief from the
automatic stay, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A);
Stephanie–Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703
(9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional
requirement.”).
2 17-60058
The parties’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13) are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-60058