GUILLERMINA AGUILAR V., No. 15-60000 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: GUILLERMINA AGUILAR, Debtor. ______________________________ GUILLERMINA AGUILAR, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 15-60000 15-60001 BAP Nos. 14-1071 14-1073 MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al., Appellees. Appeals from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Taylor, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Guillermina Aguilar appeals pro se from the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting relief from the automatic stay and dismissing Aguilar’s adversary proceeding. 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 by granting relief from the automatic stay because Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“[B]ecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review). Aguilar has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay and any challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her adversary proceeding for lack of standing. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are 2 15-60000 deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). AFFIRMED. 3 15-60000
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.
