Eugenio v. Continental Pacific, LLC (In re Eugenio)
- Citation:
- Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, No. HI-13-1459-KuJuKi (February 5, 2015)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Order affirming ruling denying motion for reconsideration pursuant to FRCP 60(b) and FRBP 9024 of order granting summary judgment. The BAP rejected arguments that the proceeding was improperly removed from state court and that the state court's prior ruling denying summary judgment had preclusive effect.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from order denying motion for reconsideration pursuant to FRCP 60(b) and FRBP 9024of order granting summary judgment for creditor in adversary proceeding removed from state court. Bankruptcy court had granted summary judgment that debtors were not entitled to possession of real property where they resided.
- Facts:
- Creditor filed a lawsuit in state court seeking possession of real estate on which the Debtors resided. After the state court denied Creditor's summary judgment motion, Debtors commenced chapter 13 cases. Creditor then removed the action to bankruptcy court, and made another summary judgment motion, which was granted. Debtor did not file a timely appeal. Instead, after the expiration of the appeal period, Debtor filed a motion for reconsideration under FRCP 60(b), which was denied.
The BAP affirmed. Under FRCP 60(b), a party may not revisit the underlying merits or reargue rulings leading to the judgment, and the only arguments made by Debtor were made or could have been made in connection with the summary judgment motion. Further, the arguments were meritless. Debtor argued that the removal was improper because the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction, but the Debtor had a possessory interest in the property, which was sufficient for jurisdiction. Further, the Debtor could have but did not file a motion for abstention or remand. Debtor also argued that the prior state court order denying summary judgment was preclusive, but the prior ruling was not a final order for purpose of preclusion. Further, even if there was merit to the preclusion argument, preclusion is not a basis for relief under Rule 60(b).
- Judge(s):
- Kurtz, Jury and Kirscher
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
