Pamela Rae Bennett V. , 677 F. App'x 334 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PAMELA RAE BENNETT, No. 14-60018
Debtor. BAP No. 13-1383
______________________________
PAMELA RAE BENNETT, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Kurtz, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Pamela Rae Bennett appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) orders dismissing her appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order and denying
Bennett’s subsequent motion to reconsider its dismissal order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion for reconsideration. Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re
Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Bennett’s motion for
reconsideration because Bennett failed to show any basis for relief. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) (enumerating grounds for relief); Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v.
Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir. 1989) (a BAP order
denying a motion to reconsider a dismissal for lack of prosecution “is appropriately
analogized to a Rule 60(b) determination”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bennett’s challenges to the BAP’s order
dismissing her appeal because Bennett failed to file a timely notice of appeal from
that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(2) (only timely motions for rehearing toll the
time to appeal the underlying order or judgment); Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d
1140, 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (a notice of appeal that is timely as to a motion for
rehearing but untimely as to the underlying judgment confers appellate jurisdiction
2 14-60018
only as to the order disposing of the motion for rehearing).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-60018