Blas v. Jipping, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER: The decision of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Joshua M. Kindred on 3/20/2024. (ANM, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LIOR BLAS, aka LEO BLAS,
Appellant,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00051-JMK

vs.

ORDER

NACOLE M. JIPPING, and U.S.
TRUSTEE,
Appellees.

Appellant Leo Blas appeals pro se from a March 2023 Order of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court dismissing his case. 1 Appellees did not file a brief on appeal. The Court
has determined that oral argument in this matter is unnecessary, as the facts are adequately
presented in the briefs and record, and the Court’s decisional process, would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. 2 It enters the following order.
I.

BACKGROUND

This appeal is one of a series of challenges to Bank of America’s right to
enforce a recorded deed of trust. Indeed, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Alaska took judicial notice of dockets in Mr. Blas’s pending Chapter 7
1
2

Docket 1.
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8019(b).

Bankruptcy matter, Case No. 17-00411 (Bankr. D. Alaska), and in Blas v. Bank of America,
N.A., Adv. Case No. 22-90003 (Bankr. D. Alaska). 3 It further took notice of three prior
Alaska Supreme Court opinions: Blas v. Bank of America, N.A., No. S-16174, 2017 WL
1379317 (Alaska April 12, 2017); Blas v. Bank of America, N.A., No. S-16933, 2019 WL
1199170 (Alaska March 13, 2019); and Blas v. Bank of America, N.A., No. S-17253, 2019
WL 5061383 (Alaska Oct. 9, 2019). 4
The debtor, Mr. Blas, originally filed under Chapter 13 to stay a pending
foreclosure of real property in Chugiak, Alaska, following unsuccessful state court
litigation. 5 In this first bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court rejected Mr. Blas’s objection to
Bank of America, N.A.’s (“BANA”) proof of claim. 6 Mr. Blas appealed to this Court,
which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. 7 Mr. Blas then converted his original
Chapter 13 reorganization into a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. 8 The bankruptcy court
entered a Chapter 7 discharge. 9
Months later, BANA moved for relief from the automatic stay of foreclosure,
which the bankruptcy court granted, concluding that evidence of bad faith partially justified
relief. 10 Thereafter, the Chapter 7 trustee and BANA reached a settlement with respect to

3

Docket 1-1 at 1.
Id.
5
In re Blas, No. 17-00411, 2018 WL 3343490, at *1 (Bankr. D. Alaska July 5, 2018).
6
See generally id.
7
Blas v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:10-cv-00324-RRB, 2020 WL 10319361 (D. Alaska
Aug. 17, 2020).
8
Docket 1-1 at 2.
9
Id.
10
In re Blas, 614 B.R. 334, 343 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2019), aff’d sub nom. Blas v. Bank of
Am. N.A., No. 3:10-cv-00324-RRB, 2020 WL 10319361 (D. Alaska Aug. 17, 2020).
4

Blas v. Jipping, et al.
Order

Case No. 3:23-cv-00051-JMK
Page 2

any claims against BANA. 11 The bankruptcy court approved this settlement and this Court
affirmed the approval on appeal. 12 Mr. Blas then appealed the District Court’s decision to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court. 13
On May 12, 2022, Mr. Blas commenced yet another Chapter 7 proceeding
and sought to enjoin BANA from foreclosing in August 2022. 14 Initially, the bankruptcy
court denied a request for a temporary restraining order, but Mr. Blas refiled a motion for
a restraining order on August 8, 2022. 15 While this renewed request was pending, on
August 15, 2022, Mr. Blas filed this Chapter 13 reorganization. 16 The bankruptcy court
entered a temporary restraining order in the first matter the same day. 17
BANA moved to dismiss both matters. In the Chapter 7 case, the bankruptcy
court dismissed all but one claim. 18 In the case before this Court on appeal, the trustee
moved to dismiss. The bankruptcy court concluded there was cause to dismiss this case
under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) as it was filed in bad faith. 19

11

Docket 1-1 at 2.
Blas v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 3:20-cv-00271-RRB, 2021 WL 4433166 (D. Alaska
Sept. 27, 2021), aff’d sub nom. Blas v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-35832, 2023 WL 4703173 (9th
Cir. July 24, 2023).
13
Blas v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-35832, 2023 WL 4703173 (9th Cir. July 24,
2023).
14
Docket 1-1 at 2 (citing Blas v. Bank of America, N.A., Adv. Case No. 22-90003 (Bankr.
D. Alaska)).
15
Docket 1-1 at 2.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 3.
19
Docket 1-1.
12

Blas v. Jipping, et al.
Order

Case No. 3:23-cv-00051-JMK
Page 3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

This Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal of the bankruptcy court under
28 U.S.C. § 158(a). It reviews the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and
its conclusions of law de novo. 20 Here, the bankruptcy court’s finding of bad faith is
reviewed for clear error and its decision to dismiss a case for abuse of discretion. 21
III.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Blas argues that his case should not be dismissed following postjudgment developments in his ongoing Chapter 7 case. 22 Furthermore, he advances several
arguments related to the merits of BANA’s foreclosure. 23 Crucially, Mr. Blas does not
address the bankruptcy court’s decision, which found cause to dismiss the current
Chapter 13 case because Mr. Blas filed it in bad faith and as an abuse of the bankruptcy
process. 24
On appeal, this Court reviews the bankruptcy court’s decision dismissing the
instant case. Mr. Blas has not challenged the bankruptcy court’s finding of bad faith or its
conclusion that cause existed that the case be dismissed as a result and thus waives any
challenge to the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order. 25 His arguments as to the merits of
20

In re Schwarzkopf, 626 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010).
In re Leavitt, 171 F.3d 1219, 1222–23 (9th Cir. 1999) (first citing In re Eisen, 14 F.3d
469, 470 (9th Cir. 1994), then citing In re Marsch, 36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994)).
22
Docket 11 at 1.
23
Id. at 1–3.
24
Docket 1-1 at 8.
25
See Rouse v. Abernathy, No. 23-15140, 2023 WL 3220934, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 20,
2023) (summarily affirming a district court judgment because the “appellant fail[ed] to address the
basis for the district court’s decisions and therefore waive[d] any challenge to the district court’s
judgment”); see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not
supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are deemed abandoned).
21

Blas v. Jipping, et al.
Order

Case No. 3:23-cv-00051-JMK
Page 4

BANA’s foreclosure and developments in a separate matter following the bankruptcy
court’s dismissal order are not material or proper considerations as they do not address the
grounds on which the bankruptcy court dismissed the case. Accordingly, the decision of
the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge

Blas v. Jipping, et al.
Order

Case No. 3:23-cv-00051-JMK
Page 5