NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVAN RENE MOORE, No. 18-55165
Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-09540-AB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. TRUSTEE, for Region 16; WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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).
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,
2 18-55165
are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-55165