FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: YAN SUI, No. 13-60068
No. 13-60069
Debtor, No. 13-60070
BAP No. 12-1223
YAN SUI, an individual, BAP No. 12-1366
BAP No. 12-1367
Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
RICHARD ALAN MARSHACK, Chapter
7 Trustee; AMRANE COHEN,
Appellees.
Appeals from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Pappas, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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 these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In these consolidated appeals, Yan Sui appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
reconverting Sui’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 proceeding, and
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Sui’s appeals of the bankruptcy court’s orders
allowing administrative claims for fees and expenses. 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.
The BAP properly determined that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its
discretion by reconverting Sui’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 proceeding,
and that the bankruptcy court’s findings of bad faith were not clearly erroneous.
See Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365, 373 (2007) (Chapter 13
proceeding may be converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding “for cause,” including bad
faith conduct); Rosson v. Fitzgerald (In re Rosson), 545 F.3d 764, 771 (9th Cir.
2008) (setting forth standard of review).
The BAP properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the
bankruptcy court’s interlocutory orders allowing administrative claims for fees and
expenses because those orders are not final decisions. See United States v. Fowler
2 13-60068
(In re Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing “pragmatic
approach to determining finality” of bankruptcy court orders and setting forth tests
to determine finality); Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir.
2004) (“[I]nterim awards are interlocutory and often require future adjustments[;]
they are always subject to the court’s reexamination and adjustment during the
course of the case.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Sui’s contentions that his bankruptcy was moot and that the BAP
erred by not amending its decision.
Sui’s request for sanctions, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
We grant Sui’s request for judicial notice filed on January 6, 2014.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-60068