NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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. 21-60032
Debtor, BAP No. 20-1184
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO,
Appellant,
v.
HIEN THI NGUYEN; ROBERT K. LANE;
DANIEL BUTT; KHIEM NGUYEN;
AVALON NGUYEN GARDNER LIVING
TRUST; HONG JACQUELINE
GARDNER; MARTIN MUSONGE,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Gan, and Brand, 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).
Nathaniel Basola Sobayo appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment
dismissing the involuntary Chapter 7 petition Sobayo filed against alleged debtor
Martin Musonge. 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 granted summary judgment because Sobayo
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was no bona
fide dispute as to the validity of Sobayo’s claims against Musonge for the amount
of outstanding rent and house debt liability. See 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1) (petitioning
creditor must hold a claim “that is not contingent as to liability or the subject of a
bona fide dispute as to liability or amount”); Liberty Tool & Mfg. v. Vortex Fishing
Sys., Inc. (In re Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc.), 277 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“[T]he burden is on the petitioning creditors to show that no bona fide dispute
exists.”); see also In re Boyajian, 564 F.3d at 1090 (standard of review).
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).
Sobayo’s motion to accept the opening brief, set forth in the opening brief, is
2 21-60032
granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-60032