In re: LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD v. E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Chapter 7 Trustee; LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD,
Debtor,
------------------------------
JOANNIE TANG-FOK,
Appellant,
v.
E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Chapter 7
Trustee; LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD,
Appellees.
No. 21-60059
BAP No. 21-1074
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Gan, Taylor, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Joannie Tang-Fok appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
* 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
MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-60059
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Linda Marie
Rutherford, a Chapter 7 debtor, discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a decision of the BAP,
and we review the underlying bankruptcy court decision applying the same
standard of review the BAP did. In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.
2021). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly granted a discharge to Rutherford because
Tang-Fok failed to file a complaint objecting to the discharge of Rutherford’s debt
or seeking to except specific debt from discharge. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S.
443, 448 n.3 (2004) (noting that time restrictions to file a complaint objecting to
discharge of any debt under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) or particular debts under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(c) are “practical[ly] identi[cal]”); In re Kennerley, 995 F.2d 145, 146 (9th
Cir. 1993) (explaining that bankruptcy rules impose strict time limits for filing
complaints to determine dischargeability of debts).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --