RYAN MELCHER V. JOHN RICHARDSON, No. 12-16035 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RYAN MELCHER, No. 12-16035 Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00342-RMW v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2014** Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Ryan Melcher appeals pro se from the district court s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court s denial of reconsideration of an order permitting Chapter 7 Trustee John W. Richardson to sell real property free and clear of liens. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court s decision without deference to the district court s determinations, Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Melcher s motion for reconsideration because Melcher failed to establish a basis warranting reconsideration. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(4) (explaining that a bankruptcy trustee may sell property free and clear of any interest in such property if such interest is in bona fide dispute); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). Melcher s contentions regarding the validity of an alleged trust agreement and whether the judgment in his state court case should be voided are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 12-16035

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.