In re: FRED GEORGE LABANKOFF v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 re: FRED GEORGE LABANKOFF,
Debtor.
FRED GEORGE LABANKOFF; et al.,
Appellants,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 10-60038
BAP No. 09-1294
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Jury, and Kwan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-60038 2
Fred George Labankoff, Swetlana Labankoff, Ludmila Shpitj, and Shpitj
Labankoff General Trust (“appellants”) appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order abstaining
from deciding an adversary proceeding against appellees and dismissing
appellants’ adversary proceeding without prejudice. We dismiss.
We lack jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s decision to abstain
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the denial of appellants’ motion to recuse
the bankruptcy judge. See Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855,
857 (9th Cir. 1986) (the notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court decision must be
filed within the time provided by Bankruptcy Rule 8002).
Appellants’ request for judicial notice and motion to strike appellees’
opening brief are denied.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --