Opinion
No. 13-15528
11-04-2016
ERLINDA ABIBAS ANIEL, Debtor-Appellant, v. JANINA M. HOSKINS, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03794-JSW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Chapter 7 debtor Erlinda Abibas Aniel appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying Aniel's motion to vacate an order denying "Debtors' Requested Certifications Regarding Effect of Discharge on Secured Debts." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the decision of the bankruptcy court without deference to the district court's decision. In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Contrary to Aniel's contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders in a closed bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy court did not err by denying Aniel's filings without first reopening her closed bankruptcy case. See Staffer v. Predovich (In re Staffer), 306 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2002) (reopening a bankruptcy proceeding is not necessary for a bankruptcy court to exercise jurisdiction unrelated to administration).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aniel's motion to vacate the order denying the "Certification of Debtors' Discharge" where Aniel failed to identify any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applies to bankruptcy proceedings); Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir. 1989) (setting forth standard of review).
Aniel's argument that the bankruptcy court's entry of the order denying the "Certification of Debtors' Discharge" violated Aniel's due process rights is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.