In the Matter of: NEIL MARTIN ROSE v. Richard M. Ruggerio;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: NEIL MARTIN ROSE,
Debtor.
NEIL MARTIN ROSE,
Appellant,
v.
RICHARD M. RUGGERIO; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 08-60034
BAP No. WW-07-1395-JuKuK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Kurtz, and Klein, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
FILED
APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Neil Martin Rose, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the decision of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
granting summary judgment, removing a lis pendens recorded by Rose against
property sold by the bankruptcy trustee, and enjoining Rose from filing other
documents clouding title to the property without prior court approval. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s
decision, Sigma Micro Corp. v. Healthcentral.com (In re Healthcentral.com), 504
F.3d 775, 783 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly canceled the invalid lis pendens. See Wash.
Rev. Code § 4.28.325 (providing that a court may cancel a lis pendens upon a
showing of good cause).
The bankruptcy court properly enjoined Rose from filing documents
clouding title to the property without prior court approval. See Molski v.
Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming pre-
filing review orders where litigant received notice and an opportunity to be heard,
there was an adequate record on appeal for review, the court found the litigant’s
actions frivolous and harassing, and the order was narrowly tailored).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We reject Rose’s contention that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction
because his allegations, even if true, do not affect jurisdiction.
Rose’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
The Chapter 7 trustee’s motion to be dismissed as a party to this appeal is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --