REYNALDO MARQUES V. JAMES JOSEPH, No. 16-60095 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: REYNALDO F. MARQUES, No. 16-60095 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 16-1116 REYNALDO F. MARQUES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. JAMES J. JOSEPH, Trustee; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, Appellees. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Faris, Pappas, and Kirscher, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of * 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). the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. 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 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 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) (“[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). Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay. See 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.”). We reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process. AFFIRMED. 2 16-60095

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.