In Re: Sidney Rudich, Debtor,sidney Rudich; Stacey Rudich; Sari Lopez, Appellants, v. Anne Schulman; William Mangos, Appellees, 81 F.3d 169 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 81 F.3d 169 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted March 26, 1996. *Decided March 29, 1996

Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^**

Sidney Rudich, Stacy Rudich, and Sari Lopez (formerly Sari Rudich), appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court's denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7055 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion, see Hammer v. Drago (In re Hammer), 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991), and affirm for the reasons stated in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision dated April 12, 1994.

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.