MOHAMMAD KHAN V. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, No. 19-55998 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: MOHAMMAD KHAN, No. 19-55998 Debtor, ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00809-JGB MOHAMMAD KHAN, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 19, 2021** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Mohammad Khan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting U.S. Bank retroactive relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Mac Donald v. Mac Donald (In re Mac Donald), 755 F.2d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay because it properly weighed the Fjelsted factors and concluded that eleven of the twelve factors weighed in favor of granting relief. See Fjelsted v. Lien (In re Fjelsted), 293 B.R. 12, 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth factors to consider in deciding whether to annul an automatic bankruptcy stay). We reject as unsupported by the record Khan’s contentions that U.S. Bank lied to the bankruptcy court about its knowledge of Khan’s bankruptcy proceedings or that Khan was prevented from presenting information to the bankruptcy or district courts. We do not consider Khan’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the bankruptcy court’s order violated the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”). Khan’s request to supplement the opening brief, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-55998

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.