In re: NABILSI YUNES ABUD v. Nabilsi Yunes Abud

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: NABILSI YUNES ABUD,
Debtor.
______________________________
RAM SAXENA,
Appellant,
v.
NABILSI YUNES ABUD,
Appellee.
No. 15-60064
BAP No. 14-1444
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Perris, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ram Saxena appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
* 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
FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-60064
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from its judgment
dismissing Saxena’s adversary proceeding as untimely. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review BAP decisions de novo 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 denying Saxena’s
motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Saxena failed
to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); see also, e.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394-97 (1993) (discussing
requirements for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)); Zurich Am. Ins.
Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 940-41 (9th
Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of “catch-all provision” of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --