In the Matter of: JOSEF S. FRIWAT, DAN JENKS v. Bp West Coast Products, LLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge for**
the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: JOSEF S. FRIWAT,
DAN JENKS,
Appellant,
v.
BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC;
UNITED FAMILY, LLC; FIRST
AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY; J.F.
OIL COMPANY, LLC,
Appellees.
No. 11-56995
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01631-H-RBB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, District
Judge.**
FILED
MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Appellant Dan Jenks challenges the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over this
case and its decision to dismiss Jenks’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
Jenks’ complaint challenges the validity of a bankruptcy court’s order
authorizing the sale of real property. His case is related to the original bankruptcy
case. Thus, federal jurisdiction exists and removal from state court was proper.
See McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A civil
proceeding is ‘related to’ a title 11 case if ‘the outcome of the proceeding could
conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.’”
(quoting In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988))). The bankruptcy court
properly dismissed the complaint because Jenks impermissibly seeks to collaterally
attack a final order of the bankruptcy court. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey,
557 U.S. 137, 148-54 (2009) (holding that, if a party or its predecessor in interest
had an opportunity to challenge a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction to
issue an order, the party may not collaterally attack the order in subsequent
proceedings).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --