NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO, No. 21-60033
Debtor, BAP No. 20-1151
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO,
Appellant,
v.
HIEN THI NGUYEN; ROBERT K. LANE;
DANIEL BUTT; KHIEM NGUYEN;
AVALON NGUYEN GARDNER LIVING
TRUST; HONG JACQUELINE GARDNER,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Brand, Spraker, and Gan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2022**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Chapter 13 debtor Nathaniel Basola Sobayo appeals pro se from the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s
order dismissing Sobayo’s adversary proceeding. 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 properly dismissed Sobayo’s adversary proceeding
because Sobayo failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the foreclosure against
Sobayo’s company, Kingsway Capital Partners, LLC, constituted a violation of the
automatic stay in Sobayo’s Chapter 13 proceeding. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 6,
§ 18-701 (“A member has no interest in specific limited liability company
property.”); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se
pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a
plausible claim).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by setting aside the entry
of default because defendants demonstrated good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c)
(“A court may set aside an entry of default for good cause . . . .”); Fed. R. Bankr. P.
7055 (“[Fed. R. Civ. P. 55] applies in adversary proceedings.”); United States v.
Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.
2010) (factors for determining good cause); Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt.,
2 21-60033
783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sobayo’s motion
for a continuance because Sobayo failed to demonstrate that he lacked sufficient
opportunity to obtain counsel. See United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358-59
(9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth standard of review and factors to consider).
We reject as without merit Sobayo’s contention that the bankruptcy court
improperly exercised jurisdiction. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs., Inc. (In re
Carraher), 971 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1992) (factors to consider).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-60033