NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUGNARA PROPERTIES VI, No. 19-17267
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02787-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KAY BRUGNARA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
LUKE D. BRUGNARA,
Movant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 24, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: OWENS, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Luke Brugnara appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
*
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).
Brugnara’s motions objecting to bankruptcy court orders. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brugnara’s motion
seeking to appeal a bankruptcy court summary judgment ruling because Brugnara
failed to perfect his appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (an appellant’s failure
to take steps to prosecute a bankruptcy appeal may be grounds for dismissal); see
also In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190-91 (finding no abuse of discretion when the
BAP summarily affirmed a bankruptcy court judgment based on appellant’s non-
compliance with procedural rules).
2. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Brugnara’s
motion for reconsideration because Brugnara’s notice of appeal divested the district
court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See Neary v.
Padilla (In re Padilla), 222 F.3d 1184, 1190 (9th Cir. 2000).
Because we affirm the district court’s orders denying Brugnara’s requests for
relief, we do not consider Brugnara’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s decisions.
See In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190.
The State of California Franchise Tax Board’s request for judicial notice
(Docket Entry No. 50) is granted.
2 19-17267
AFFIRMED.
3 19-17267