In re: KAREN MICHELE ROZIER v. U.s. Bank N.a.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KAREN MICHELE ROZIER,
Debtor,
KAREN MICHELE ROZIER,
Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK N.A.,
Appellee.
No. 13-60106
BAP No. 12-1359
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Pappas, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted: December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Karen Michele Rozier appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
FILED
DEC 16 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 --

(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting U.S. Bank
N.A.’s motion for relief from 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.
U.S. Bank had standing to seek relief from the automatic stay with respect to
certain real property because U.S. Bank established that it had a colorable claim to
the property. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir.
2013) (per curiam) (“[B]ecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and
liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a
colorable claim to the property at issue.”); see also Mayfield v. United States, 599
F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Standing is a question of law that we review de
novo.”).
We reject Rozier’s contentions regarding the alleged bias of the bankruptcy
court judge and a member of the BAP.
Rozier’s request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-60106 2

-- 2 of 2 --