EDWARD NEGRETE, JR. V. CITIZENS STATE BANK, No. 14-60056 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 05 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: EDWARD NEGRETE, Jr., No. 14-60056 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 13-1557 EDWARD NEGRETE, Jr., MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. CITIZENS STATE BANK, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Kirscher, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016 ** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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). Chapter 7 debtor Edward Negrete, Jr. appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion for contempt and his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 Negrete’s motion for contempt because Negrete failed to demonstrate that Citizens State Bank violated a court order. See In re Icenhower, 755 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A party may be held in civil contempt only if it violated a specific and definite order of the court” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Negrete’s motion under Rule 59(e) because Negrete failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing factors for granting a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). AFFIRMED. 2 14-60056

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.