Opinion
No. 18-55165
01-23-2019
IVAN RENE MOORE, Appellant, v. U.S. TRUSTEE, for Region 16; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-09540-AB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Debtor Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing his Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court's decision to dismiss a case for cause. Marsch v. Marsch (In re Marsch), 36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994). We review for clear error a bankruptcy court's findings of fact. Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in concluding that Moore failed to comply with certain reporting requirements in a timely manner and failed to complete accurately his schedules, and, on the record before it, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore's bankruptcy case "for cause." See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) (permitting a bankruptcy court to dismiss a case "for cause" "on request of a party in interest"), (b)(4)(F) (explaining that an "unexcused failure to satisfy timely any filing or reporting requirement established by this title . . ." provides cause to dismiss a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition); Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157, 165 (1991) (bankruptcy court has "substantial discretion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case in which the debtor files an untenable plan of reorganization").
We reject as without merit Moore's contention that his due process and equal protection rights were violated.
Moore's requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.