Miguel Leon V. , 588 F. App'x 712 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           DEC 22 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: MIGUEL LEON; GREGORY LEE,                 No. 13-60005
    Debtors,                        BAP No. 12-1150
    DONOVANT GRANT,                                  MEMORANDUM*
    Appellant,
    v.
    MIGUEL LEON; GREGORY LEE,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Markell, Beesley, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Submitted December 9, 2014**
    Before:         WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Donovant Grant appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
    (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in his
    consolidated adversary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review de novo, Mfrs. Hanover v. Dewalt (In re Dewalt), 
    961 F.2d 848
    , 850 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
    The bankruptcy court properly determined that Grant untimely raised his
    fraud claims because the deadline to file a complaint challenging the
    dischargeability of the debt had passed. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c) (a
    complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt under 
    11 U.S.C. § 523
    (c)
    must be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of
    creditors under 
    11 U.S.C. § 341
    (a)); Anwar v. Johnson, 
    720 F.3d 1183
    , 1187, 1189
    (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 4007(c)’s time limit is strict and cannot be extended unless a
    motion is filed before the time limit expires; there is no excusable neglect
    exception to the time limit).
    We reject Grant’s contentions that summary judgment was improper because
    Grant had been subject to alleged fraudulent misrepresentations, had been allowed
    to file his complaints, and was purportedly entitled to discovery.
    Because we affirm on the basis of untimeliness, we do not consider Grant’s
    contention that Leon and Lee were not entitled to discharge.
    2                                      13-60005
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in Grant’s opening brief to the BAP. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. (In re
    Burnett), 
    435 F.3d 971
    , 976-77 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not presented to BAP are
    waived unless there are “exceptional circumstances” to indicate Court of Appeals
    should exercise discretion to consider the issues).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                  13-60005
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-60005

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 712

Filed Date: 12/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023