In re Hildy Jean ORTIZ; Marcus Alonzo Nieto, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson, Chapter 13 Trustee; Hildy Jean Ortiz; Marcus Alonzo Nieto; UST-United States Trustee, Appellees. In re Harvey P. Mickelsen; Stephanie B. Mickelsen, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson, Chapter 13 Trustee; UST-United States Trustee, Sacramento, Appellees. In re Ben Leando Dye; Kaelyn Marie Dye, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson; Ben Leando Dye; Kaelyn Marie Dye, Appellees., Sean Gjerde. In re Harvey P. Mickelsen; Stephanie B. Mickelsen, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson, Chapter 13 Trustee; UST-United States Trustee, Sacramento, Appellees. In re Ben Leando Dye; Kaelyn Marie Dye, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson; Ben Leando Dye; Kaelyn Marie Dye, Appellees., Sean Gjerde. In re Harvey P. Mickelsen; Stephanie B. Mickelsen, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson, Chapter 13 Trustee; UST-United States Trustee, Sacramento, Appellees. In re Hildy Jean Ortiz; Marcus Alonzo Nieto, Debtors, James Patrick Chandler, Appellant, v. Jan P. Johnson, Chapter 13 Trustee; Hildy Jean Ortiz; Marcus Alonzo Nieto; UST-United States Trustee, Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2015-05-06No. Nos. 13-60011, 13-60012, 13-60013, 13-60014, 13-60015, 13-60016, 13-60017

601 F. App'x 589

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

MEMORANDUM

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel correctly dismissed Chandler’s appeals of the bankruptcy court’s entry of a default judgment of contempt against him. Chandler was clearly apprised of the contempt proceedings and the bankruptcy court’s entry of a default judgment of contempt. However, he didn’t move the bankruptcy court to set aside the entry of the default judgment or for relief from the default judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c), 60(b). An appeal “‘cannot be used as a substitute’ for these procedures.” Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. Domain Name Clearing Co., 346 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Rohauer v. Friedman, 306 F.2d 933, 937 (9th Cir.1962)); see also In re Lam, 192 F.3d 1309, 1311 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (“[A] party may not challenge the entry of default in the first instance in an appellate court; rather, a party must first file an appropriate motion in the court where the default was entered.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.