FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: G. GREGORY No. 08-55235
WILLIAMS,
D.C. No. CV-07-02879-ABC
Debtor,
MEMORANDUM *
G. GREGORY WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v.
FRANKLIN TOWERS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC., a California
Incorporated Association; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
G. Gregory Williams, a Chapter 13 debtor, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order (1) affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of a damages claim that
had been remanded by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”);
(2) reversing in part and affirming in part the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of
Williams’ adversary complaint; and (3) affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of
Williams’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) motion. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on
appeal from a bankruptcy court. Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re
Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt), 171 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th
Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court correctly denied Williams’ request for damages for
violation of the automatic stay because the stay was retroactively annulled.
In dismissing the adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, it is not clear
whether the bankruptcy court recognized that it retained discretionary subject
matter jurisdiction over that proceeding. See Fernandez v. GE Capital Mortgage
Servs., Inc. (In re Fernandez), 227 B.R. 174, 179 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998).
However, because damages for violation of the automatic stay are not available, we
affirm the dismissal of Williams’ adversary proceeding section 362(h) claim.
2 08-55235
The record does not demonstrate that the bankruptcy court considered
whether jurisdiction exists or is warranted over the state-law claims Williams
raised in the adversary proceeding. Therefore, the district court properly remanded
to the bankruptcy court for consideration of this issue in the first instance.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) motion because Williams did not present
any evidence or argument demonstrating that the bankruptcy court’s denial of the
remanded claim for damages was the result of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Hammer v. Drago (In re Hammer),
940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review).
We reject Williams’ remaining contentions.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-55235