NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: REYNALDO F. MARQUES, No. 16-60095
Debtor. BAP No. 16-1116
______________________________
REYNALDO F. MARQUES, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
JAMES J. JOSEPH, Trustee; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Faris, Pappas, and Kirscher, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of
*
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).
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. 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 bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the
automatic stay because JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. presented evidence
establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v.
Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[B]ecause final
adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay
relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”);
Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir.
2001) (setting forth standard of review).
Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic
stay. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only
issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions
that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-60095