NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MOHAMMAD KHAN, No. 19-55998
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00809-JGB
______________________________
MOHAMMAD KHAN, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, successor in
interest to Bank of America,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Khan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
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).
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting U.S. Bank retroactive relief from
the automatic bankruptcy stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
We review for an abuse of discretion, Mac Donald v. Mac Donald (In re Mac
Donald), 755 F.2d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive
relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay because it properly weighed the Fjelsted
factors and concluded that eleven of the twelve factors weighed in favor of
granting relief. See Fjelsted v. Lien (In re Fjelsted), 293 B.R. 12, 25 (B.A.P. 9th
Cir. 2003) (setting forth factors to consider in deciding whether to annul an
automatic bankruptcy stay). We reject as unsupported by the record Khan’s
contentions that U.S. Bank lied to the bankruptcy court about its knowledge of
Khan’s bankruptcy proceedings or that Khan was prevented from presenting
information to the bankruptcy or district courts.
We do not consider Khan’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that
the bankruptcy court’s order violated the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights.
See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we
will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Khan’s request to supplement the opening brief, set forth in the opening
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55998