NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: GARY ABRAMS, No. 22-60034
Debtor, BAP No.21-1240
_____________________
MEMORANDUM*
GARY ABRAMS,
Appellant,
v.
JONI SCHINSKE; NANCY K. CURRY,
Appellees.
In re: GARY ABRAMS, No. 22-60035
Debtor, BAP No.21-1241
_____________________
GARY ABRAMS,
Appellant,
v.
JONI SCHINSKE; NANCY K. CURRY,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Gan, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 1, 2024 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gary Abrams appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP)
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court and denying rehearing. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy
court’s rulings on appeal from the BAP, see In re DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Abrams’ motion to dismiss, because
the motion was untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Additionally, Abrams’
arguments that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction, or that a purchaser lacked
standing, are without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (G); see also, e.g., Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (elements of Article III standing);
Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 447 (2004)
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
(“Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a debtor’s property, wherever
located, and over the estate.”).
The bankruptcy court properly denied Abrams’ motion for sanctions. First,
the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Abrams failed
to meet the Federal Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c)(1)(A) and (c)(2) “safe harbor”
provisions for providing notice to his offending party before filing this motion for
sanctions. See In re Markus, 313 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). Second,
Abrams failed to provide any colorable argument in support of the motion. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 (prohibiting the presentation of material for an improper
purpose, and requiring that factual and legal contentions be supported).
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Abrams’ motions for rehearing of its BAP decision because Abrams failed to raise
any new facts or argument in his motions, nor did he present any material point
that the BAP had overlooked. See Fed. R. Bank. Proc. 8022(a)(2).
Abrams’ “Motion for Appeal of BAP Decision” (Docket Entry No. 6 in No.
22-60034; Docket Entry No. 5 in 22-60035) is denied as unnecessary. This notice
of appeal preserved the appeal for Abrams, in which he has had a full opportunity
to pursue his relief.
Appellee Joni Schinske’s request for sanctions or enhanced costs, made in
her answering brief, is denied without prejudice to the filing of a separate, noticed
3
motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
AFFIRMED.
4