In re: WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. v. Ust - United States Trustee, Reno; World Botanical Gardens, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS,
INC.,
Debtor.
WALTER L. WAGNER; et al.,
Appellants,
v.
UST - UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
RENO; WORLD BOTANICAL
GARDENS, INC.,
Appellees.
No. 15-60037
BAP No. 14-1246
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Jury and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-60037
Walter L. Wagner, Calvin Andrus, and Douglas Lee appeal pro se from the
judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy
court’s order converting the debtor’s bankruptcy case from a case under chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code to one under chapter 7. 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 BAP correctly limited the scope of the appeal to the bankruptcy court’s
conversion order because appellants failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s sale
order within 14 days of entry as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See 11
U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court
must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Anderson v.
Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he untimely
filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the
bankruptcy court’s order.”); see also Sulmeyer v. Karbach Enters. (In re Exennium,
Inc.), 715 F.2d 1401, 1402-03 (9th Cir. 1983) (bankruptcy court order approving
sale of property of the bankruptcy estate deemed final).
The BAP properly determined that appellants lack standing to challenge the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-60037
bankruptcy court’s conversion order due to inadequate notice because appellants
concede that they received notice of the hearing. Appellants’ appeal is based on an
alleged lack of notice to other parties but appellants lack standing to assert the
legal rights of others and they provide no authority for their assertion that the
alleged lack of notice to others deprived the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction. See
Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 289-90 (2008)
(prudential standing requires that a party must assert its own legal rights and may
not assert the legal rights of another).
We do not consider the merits of the bankruptcy court’s conversion order
because appellants do not challenge the substance of the order in their opening
brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because we affirm based on appellants’ lack of standing to prosecute the
appeal, we do not consider Wagner’s challenge to the BAP’s order dismissing him
as an appellant.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --