Helena Reilly v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: HELENA PEREZ REILLY, No. 20-60013
Debtor. BAP No. 19-1187
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
HELENA PEREZ REILLY,
Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Faris, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 13 debtor Helena Perez Reilly appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
*
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).
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
dismissing her 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 properly dismissed Reilly’s adversary proceeding
because Reilly failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
lacked standing for its proof of claim or that the proof of claim was otherwise
invalid. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) (“A proof of claim executed and filed in
accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity
and amount of the claim.”); Tracht Gut, LLC v. L.A. Cnty. Treasurer & Tax
Collector (In re Tracht Gut, LLC), 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting
forth standard of review for bankruptcy court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se
pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a
plausible claim).
We reject as unpersuasive Reilly’s challenge to the authenticity of the note
and deed of trust. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f).
2 20-60013
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-60013