In re: SOON WHA CHEY; DAVID CHEY v. Amrane Cohen;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SOON WHA CHEY; DAVID
CHEY,
Debtors,
SOON WHA CHEY; DAVID CHEY,
Appellants,
v.
AMRANE COHEN; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 10-60029
BAP No. 09-1254
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Montali, and Brandt, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Soon Wha Chey and her son, David Chey, appeal pro se from the
FILED
FEB 3 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s
order granting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion for relief from an automatic stay
with respect to certain real property. 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 bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the
automatic bankruptcy stay to Wells Fargo because the Cheys no longer had a legal
or equitable interest in the subject property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (allowing
bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay for cause); Christensen v. Tucson
Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990)
(cause for lifting the stay may exist where a state court proceeding involving the
same issues is pending).
The Cheys’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, are
denied.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
10-60029 2

-- 2 of 2 --