NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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: MARTIN MUSONGE, No. 21-60024
Debtor, BAP No. 20-1060
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO,
Appellant,
v.
HIEN THI NGUYEN; MARTIN
MUSONGE,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Brand, Klein, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2022**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Nathaniel Basola Sobayo appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
*
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).
Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing for lack of standing Sobayo’s appeal from
the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo issues of
standing. Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC v. Lehman Com. Paper, Inc. (In re Palmdale
Hills Prop., LLC), 654 F.3d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Sobayo’s appeal because Sobayo, as a creditor,
lacked standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the
automatic stay. See Tilley v. Vucurevich (In re Pecan Groves of Ariz.), 951 F.2d
242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] creditor has no independent standing to appeal an
adverse decision regarding a violation of the automatic stay.”); see also Harkey v.
Grobstein (In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc.), 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018)
(“[O]nly a person aggrieved, that is, someone who is directly and adversely
affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy court’s order, has standing to appeal that
order.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Nguyen’s motion to submit the case for decision without oral argument
(Docket Entry No. 18) and Sobayo’s motion to exceed the page limit, set forth in
the opening brief, are granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-60024