PAMELA RAE BENNETT V., No. 14-60018 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: PAMELA RAE BENNETT, No. 14-60018 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 13-1383 PAMELA RAE BENNETT, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, Trustee; et al., Appellees. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Kurtz, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Pamela Rae Bennett appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing her appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order and denying Bennett’s subsequent motion to reconsider its dismissal order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Bennett’s motion for reconsideration because Bennett failed to show any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (enumerating grounds for relief); Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir. 1989) (a BAP order denying a motion to reconsider a dismissal for lack of prosecution “is appropriately analogized to a Rule 60(b) determination”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Bennett’s challenges to the BAP’s order dismissing her appeal because Bennett failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(2) (only timely motions for rehearing toll the time to appeal the underlying order or judgment); Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140, 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (a notice of appeal that is timely as to a motion for rehearing but untimely as to the underlying judgment confers appellate jurisdiction 2 14-60018 only as to the order disposing of the motion for rehearing). AFFIRMED. 3 14-60018
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.
