Perry v. Key Auto Recovery (In Re Perry)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
In re: AVRAM MOSHE PERRY, No. 13-60098
Debtor, BAP No. 12-1313
AVRAM MOSHE PERRY, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
KEY AUTO RECOVERY; CHASE
AUTO FINANCE,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Kirscher, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Avram Moshe Perry appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Perry’s motion
to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s prior order directing that an adversary
proceeding be closed. 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 in denying Perry’s motion
to reconsider its judgment because appellant failed to establish any basis for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
Perry’s motion to supplement his excerpts of record is granted. Perry’s
requests for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-60098