NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: GUILLERMINA AGUILAR, Nos. 15-60000
15-60001
Debtor.
______________________________ BAP Nos. 14-1071
14-1073
GUILLERMINA AGUILAR,
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeals from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Taylor, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Guillermina Aguilar appeals pro se from the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy
court’s orders granting relief from the automatic stay and dismissing Aguilar’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 did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the
automatic stay because Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC presented evidence
establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v.
Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)
(“[B]ecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a
party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the
property at issue.”); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d
1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).
Aguilar has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay
and any challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her adversary
proceeding for lack of standing. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.
1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are
2 15-60000
deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s
opening brief.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-60000