IN RE: Mohammad KHAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-21No. No. 19-55998

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment because the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive relief from the automatic stay, having properly applied the applicable factors to the facts.

Mohammad Khan appealed the district court's decision upholding a bankruptcy court order that granted U.S. Bank retroactive relief from the automatic stay that normally protects debtors during bankruptcy proceedings. The appellate court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and found that the bankruptcy court properly analyzed the relevant factors for granting such relief, concluding that eleven of twelve factors supported U.S. Bank's request. Khan argued that U.S. Bank had misrepresented facts to the bankruptcy court and that he was denied an opportunity to present his side, but the court found these claims were not supported by the record.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in granting retroactive relief from the automatic stay
Application of the Fjelsted factors for evaluating automatic stay relief
Whether Khan was prevented from presenting evidence to the courts

Procedural posture

Khan appealed pro se from a district court judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting retroactive relief from the automatic stay to U.S. Bank.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Mohammad Khan appeals pro se from the district courts judgment affirming the bankruptcy courts order granting U.S. Bank retroactive relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Mac Donald v. Mac Donald (In re Mac Donald), 755 F.2d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay because it properly weighed the Fjelsted factors and concluded that eleven of the twelve factors weighed in favor of granting relief. See Fjelsted v. Lien (In re Fjelsted), 293 B.R. 12, 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth factors to consider in deciding whether to annul an automatic bankruptcy stay). We reject as unsupported by the record Khans contentions that U.S. Bank lied to the bankruptcy court about its knowledge of Khans bankruptcy proceedings or that Khan was prevented from presenting information to the bankruptcy or district courts.

We do not consider Khans argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the bankruptcy courts order violated the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).

Khans request to supplement the opening brief, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.