In re: REALIA, INC. v. Eric M. Black, L.l.c.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: REALIA, INC.,
Debtor,
NORTH AMERICAN SERVICE
HOLDINGS, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
ERIC M. BLACK, L.L.C.,
Appellee.
No. 12-60029
BAP No. 11-1334
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Dunn, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Appellant North American Service Holdings, Inc. (“NASH”) seeks review
of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s memorandum decision affirming the
bankruptcy court’s declaratory judgment that NASH did not hold an option to
purchase a parcel of real property in Visalia, California. This court independently
reviews the bankruptcy court’s decision, see, e.g., Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d
794, 795 (9th Cir. 1986), and we affirm.
Upon de novo review, we determine that the bankruptcy court had ancillary
jurisdiction to interpret or to clarify its August 9, 2006 order. See Battle Ground
Plaza, LLC v. Ray (In re Ray), 624 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2010). The
bankruptcy court reopened the bankruptcy case for this limited purpose, and
provided the parties with the requested clarification.
Turning to the merits, we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law
de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. See, e.g., Hedlund v. Educ. Res.
Inst. Inc., 718 F.3d 848, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2013). We conclude that NASH offers
no meritorious basis on which to vacate the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of its
own prior order. Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s August 9, 2006
order, for the reasons given by the bankruptcy court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --