In re: ANTHONY VANDERPLOEG v. Anthony Vanderploeg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ANTHONY VANDERPLOEG,
Debtor.
JACQUES POWERS,
Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY VANDERPLOEG,
Appellee.
No. 15-55939
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00026-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jacques Powers appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order denying Powers’s motion to reopen his dismissed
* 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).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-55939
adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review
de novo the decision of the bankruptcy court without deference to the district
court’s decision. In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We
affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Powers’s
motion to vacate its order dismissing the adversary proceeding because Powers
failed to identify any grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d
1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).
Because Powers’s notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court was not timely as
to the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the adversary proceeding, we do not
consider Powers’s challenges to that order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b) (Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion tolls appeal period only if filed within 14 days of judgment,
order or decree); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th
Cir. 1994) (provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 are jurisdictional); see also
Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1994) (parties
have an affirmative duty to monitor the docket). We also do not consider Powers’s
arguments related to the merits of his underlying claims.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --