In Re Edgar Augusto Meinhardt Iturbe

Filing 43

MINUTES (In Chambers) Order AFFIRMING the Bankruptcy Court's November 9, 2023 Order Remanding and Dismissing the Adversary Proceeding by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. For the reasons set forth above, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court's November 9, 2023 Order. (See document for further information). (Case Terminated. Made JS-6). (aco)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 23-9857-KK

Date: January 7, 2025

Title: In Re Edgar Augusto Meinhardt Iturbe

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noe Ponce

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order AFFIRMING the Bankruptcy Court’s November 9,
2023 Order Remanding and Dismissing the Adversary Proceeding
I.
INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 2023, pro se debtor and appellant Edgar Augusto Meinhardt Iturbe
(“Appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal of a November 9, 2023 Order (“Order”) issued by the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), in Meinhardt,
et al. v. Sunny Acre LLC, et al., Case No. 9:23-ap-1013-RC (“Adversary Proceeding”). ECF Docket
No. (“Dkt.”) 1. The Adversary Proceeding arises from the April 11, 2023 removal of claims from
Appellant’s 2020 action in Los Angeles Superior Court, Meinhardt, et al. v. Sunny Acre LLC, et al.,
Case No. 20-SMCV-00492 (“2020 Superior Court Action”) to the Bankruptcy Court. Id. The
Order dismissed the Adversary Proceeding and remanded it to state court. Dkts. 1, 20.
On December 26, 2023, the Court received notice the bankruptcy record was complete.
Dkt. 12. On March 11, 2024, Appellant filed his Opening Brief arguing the Bankruptcy Court erred
by remanding and dismissing the Adversary Proceeding. Dkt. 21. On May 23, 2024, appellees
Leonard Hsu, Jr., Christopher XF Lee, Sunny Acre, LLC, Eric Tran, and Tsasu LLC (collectively,
“Appellees”) filed their Answering Brief. Dkt. 28.
The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy
Court’s November 9, 2023 Order.
///
Page 1 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

II.
BACKGROUND
A.

PRIOR BANKRUPTCY ACTIONS AND STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Appellant and Reinaldo Gonzalez Suarez created Corp. Realty USA, LLC (“Corp. Realty”) to
hold a single-family residential property located in Malibu, California (the “Property”). In re: Edgar
Augusto Meinhardt Iturbe, Case No. 9:23-bk-10022-RC (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2023), dkt. 196 at 2. 1
Appellant obtained a loan to purchase the Property on behalf of Corp. Realty. Id. Repayment of
the loan was secured by a first position deed of trust on the Property, and the original loan was
refinanced and transferred to new lenders several times. Id.
After repeated defaults on the loan – various lenders attempted to foreclose on the Property
since at least 2018. Id. In response, Appellant obtained new financing and, in his own name or on
behalf of Corp. Realty, filed three previous bankruptcy petitions in 2018, 2019, and 2020, in an
effort to stop foreclosure of the Property. Id. The Bankruptcy Court ultimately dismissed all three
bankruptcy petitions upon determining the petitions were filed in bad faith. Id. at 3.
On March 30, 2020, after Corp. Realty defaulted and the most recent lender sought
foreclosure, Appellant and Corp. Realty filed a complaint against the lender in Los Angeles Superior
Court, alleging 16 causes of action and seeking a temporary restraining order with respect to the
lender’s pending foreclosure sale. Id. After filing the state court action, Corp. Realty “transferred
the Property to Appellant” by quitclaim deed without the lender’s knowledge or approval. Id.
On June 2, 2020, the Los Angeles Superior Court denied Appellant’s and Corp. Realty’s
request for a temporary restraining order. Id. On June 3, 2020 – the morning of the lender’s
scheduled foreclosure sale – Appellant filed a voluntary petition for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of
Title 11 of the United States Code (“2020 Bankruptcy Case”), which immediately stayed the lender’s
foreclosure sale. Id.
The lender subsequently filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay to proceed with the
nonjudicial foreclosure of the Property. Id. After briefing by both parties and an evidentiary
hearing, the Bankruptcy Court determined the lender was entitled to relief from the automatic stay
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (4) because (a) the bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith,
(b) the Property was not necessary for reorganization, and (c) the bankruptcy petition was part of
Appellant’s scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Id. Thus, on August 12, 2020, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an Order dismissing the 2020 Bankruptcy Case. Id.
Following the grant of the lender’s motion for relief, the lender sold the Property at a
nonjudicial foreclosure sale to appellee Sunny Acre, and a trustee’s deed upon sale was recorded on
August 24, 2020. Id. at 4. Despite the sale, however, Appellant refused to vacate the Property. Id.
Consequently, on October 8, 2020, appellee Sunny Acre served Appellant with a 3-day notice to quit
the premises. Id.

An appellate court may take judicial notice of underlying bankruptcy records. See In re E.R.
Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 1989).
1

Page 2 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

On October 20, 2020, upon Appellant’s refusal to quit the premises, appellee Sunny Acre
filed an unlawful detainer action in state court (the “UD Action”). Id.
B.

2020 SUPERIOR COURT ACTION, 2023 BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, 2023
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING, AND 2023 DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDING

On October 30, 2020, Appellant filed the 2020 Superior Court Action – specifically, a First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in Los Angeles Superior Court arising out of the nonjudicial
foreclosure sale of the Property and subsequent Unlawful Detainer Action commenced against
Appellant after he failed to vacate the Property. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 1 at 11. The FAC
raised several causes of action including, including: (1) Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, (3) Rescission and Damages Under the Truth in Lending
Act, (4) Violation of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, (5) Fraud and Deceit; (6)
Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Breach of Contract, and (8) Declaratory Relief. Id.
On January 11, 2023, Appellant filed a petition for relief pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 11
of the United States Code (“2023 Bankruptcy”). In re: Iturbe, Case No. 9:23-bk-10022-RC, dkt. 1.
On April 11, 2023, Appellant filed a Notice of Removal, seeking to remove the following
four claims in the FAC to Bankruptcy Court: (1) Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, (2) Rescission and Damages Under the Truth in Lending Act, (3) Violation of the Home
Ownership and Equity Protection Act, and (4) Declaratory Relief. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 1.
Thus, the 2023 Adversary Proceeding was opened. On May 11, 2023, Appellees filed a Motion for
Remand, set for hearing on October 11, 2023. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 16.
On July 21, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the 2023 Bankruptcy Action finding
Appellant’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition was “a litigation tactic, in an extensive line of litigation
tactics employed by [Appellant] regarding the Property and Sunny Acre.” 2023 Bankruptcy, dkt.
166. The Bankruptcy Court concluded, “[g]iven the history of bad faith, the Court further believes
that absent a prohibition on refiling, history will only repeat itself” and “there is nothing to prevent
[Appellant] from simply filing another case with this Court as a tactic in further litigation regarding
the Property.” Id. at 13.
On October 10, 2023, Appellant filed a Motion to Withdraw Reference to the Bankruptcy
Court of Adversary Proceeding (“Motion to Withdraw”) with this Court. In re: Edgar Augusto
Meinhardt Iturbe, Case No. 2:23-cv-8528-KK (C.D. Cal. 2023) (“2023 District Court Action”), 2
Dkt. 1.
On October 10, 2023, the day before the hearing on the Motion to Remand, Appellant
requested a continuance of the hearing “so that the [Motion to Withdraw] filed with [this Court]
may be heard . . . .” Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 33. The Bankruptcy Court continued the hearing to
November 8, 2023. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 39. On November 8, 2023, following the hearing,
the Bankruptcy Court issued its tentative ruling (1) denying any request for a continuance or stay of
the Motion to Remand under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(c) (“Rule 5011(c)”); (2)
The 2023 District Court Action was originally assigned to United States District Judge
Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Dkts. 1, 18.
2

Page 3 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the Adversary Case under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b); and (3)
abstaining from the Adversary Proceedings and remanding the case on equitable grounds under 28
U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). Adversary Proceeding, dkts. 41, 44.
On November 9, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court issued the Order remanding and dismissing
the Adversary Proceeding. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 41. With respect to Appellant’s request for a
further continuance, the Bankruptcy Court construed Appellant’s request as a motion for a stay of
the proceedings under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(c). Id. at 7. In doing so, the
Bankruptcy Court found Appellant failed to meet his burden to establish a stay was warranted. Id.
at 7-8.
With respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the
Adversary Case under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), the Bankruptcy Court considered:
(1) There is no estate at this juncture, and so abstention does not affect
the administration of any estate; (2) the State Court Complaint is
dominated by state law issues (i.e., all but three of the sixteen causes of
action in the State Court Complaint are solely creatures of state or
common law); (3) there is nothing unsettled about the causes of action
removed to this Court through the Adversary Case; (4) there is a state
court proceeding that was filed more than three years ago; (5) there is
no degree of relatedness to the 2023 Bankruptcy Case, because the
2023 Bankruptcy Case has been dismissed; (6) the causes of action
removed are not core proceedings; (7) the Adversary Case would be a
burden on this Court’s docket given the fact that this Court would be
presiding over at least pre-trial issues that have no connection to an
actual bankruptcy case; (8) the Debtor’s history of litigation regarding
the Property, including the holdings of state and federal courts related
to that litigation, and the Debtor’s history in this Court, leads this
Court to conclude that the Debtor has engaged in forum shopping; (9)
the Debtor has made a demand for a jury trial; and (10) all parties but
the Debtor are non-debtor parties, including a co-plaintiff.
Id. at 8-10.
With respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to remand the action to State Court under
28 U.S.C. §1452(b), the Bankruptcy Court found (1) “all of the removed causes of action in the
Adversary Case are non-core” and instead, related to the 2023 Bankruptcy Case; (2) the 2023
Bankruptcy Case has been dismissed; (3) the State Court has presided over the State Court Action
for more than three years, the claims are of within the types of cases typically resolved by state
courts, and there is nothing novel about the causes of action; (4) Appellant’s removal of the State
Court Action was a further attempt by Appellant to forum shop; and (5) the State Court Defendants
would be prejudiced by Appellant’s “attempt to carve-out parts of the State Court Complaint to
have determined by this Court, only to leave litigation over the majority of the causes of action in
the State Court Complaint for the State Court to later decide.” Id. at 8-12.

Page 4 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

On April 19, 2024, following Appellant’s appeal of the 2023 Bankruptcy dismissal, this Court
affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s July 21, 2023 Order (“2023 Bankruptcy Appeal”). In Re Edgar
Augusto Meinhardt Iturbe, Case No. 2:23-cv-7474-KK (C.D. Cal. 2023), dkt. 32.
C.

INSTANT APPEAL

On November 20, 2023, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s
November 9, 2023 Order granting Appellees’ motion to remand and dismissing the Adversary
Proceeding. Dkt. 1.
On March 11, 2024, Appellant filed his Opening Brief arguing the Bankruptcy Court erred
by: (1) entering the Order to Remand and Dismiss the Adversary Proceeding while the Motion to
Withdraw the Reference was pending in the 2023 District Court Action; (2) abstaining from the
Adversary Proceeding; (3) declining to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the Adversary Proceeding;
and (4) issuing the Order remanding and dismissing before Appellant’s time to file objections
expired. Dkt. 21.
On May 23, 2024, Appellees filed their Answering Brief. Dkt. 28. On June 18, 2024,
Appellant filed a Reply Brief. Dkt. 38. The matter, thus, stands submitted.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 158 provides, in relevant part, “[t]he district courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees . . . of bankruptcy judges
entered in cases and proceedings referred to [] bankruptcy judges[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 158. Such appeals
are “taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of
appeals from the district courts.” Id. § 158(c)(2). “[T]he district court functions as an appellate
court in reviewing a bankruptcy decision and applies the same standards of review as a federal court
of appeals[.]” In re Crystal Props., Ltd., L.P., 268 F.3d 743, 755 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation
omitted).
A bankruptcy court’s decision to stay an action while a motion to withdraw is pending, to
decline to exercise jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding after dismissal of the underlying
bankruptcy case, and to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
See In re City of Detroit, Mich., 498 B.R. 776, 781 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing In re Chrysler
LLC, 2009 WL 7386569, at *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2009)) (“[T]he issue of whether to grant a
stay is left to the court’s discretion.”); In re McCarthy, 230 B.R. 414, 416 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999)
(“Decisions to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) are committed to the sound discretion of the
bankruptcy judge and are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”); In re Zegzula, No. AP 14-04005-BDL,
2015 WL 5786572, at *2 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2015) (“We review the bankruptcy court’s decision
to decline to exercise jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding for an abuse of discretion.”). With
respect to application of Local Bankruptcy Rules, a bankruptcy court’s compliance with local rules is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re Johnson, No. BAP CC-14-1169, 2014 WL 6953306, at *3
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2014) (“We review a bankruptcy court’s compliance with local rules for
abuse of discretion.”).

Page 5 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

“A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies
the correct legal standard, or if its factual findings are illogical, implausible, or without support in
inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” In re Zegzula, 2015 WL 5786572, at *2.
The reviewing district court “may affirm on any ground fairly supported by the record.” In re
Jimenez, 613 B.R. 537, 543 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2020) (citing In re Leavitt, 171 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir.
1999)).
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
DENYING A REQUEST TO CONTINUE WHILE THE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW WAS PENDING
1.

Applicable Law

Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(c), a motion to withdraw a case or
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), “does not stay proceedings in a case or affect its
administration.” However, “a bankruptcy judge may, on proper terms and conditions, stay a
proceeding until the motion is decided.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5011(c). See also In re Viola, 2011 WL
4831200, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Under the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(c), filing a
withdrawal of reference does not stay the bankruptcy proceedings, unless the bankruptcy court or
district court orders it stayed.”).
“The moving party has the burden ‘to establish that a stay under the circumstances would be
appropriate.’” In re Matterhorn Grp., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-02849-GEB, 2010 WL 4628119, at *2
(E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2010) (quoting In re The Antioch Co., 435 B.R. 493, 496 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio
2010)). “[A] stay should be granted only if the moving party can show (1) the likelihood that the
pending motion to withdraw will be granted (i.e. likelihood of success on the merits); (2) that the
movant will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is denied; (3) that the non-movants will not be
substantially harmed by the stay; and (4) the public interest will be served by granting the stay.” Id.
(quoting In re The Antioch Co., 435 B.R. at 497).
2.

Analysis

Here, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to stay the proceedings
while the Motion to Withdraw was pending in the 2023 District Court Action. First, the Bankruptcy
Court noted Appellant failed to provide any analysis or reasons justifying a stay, and thus, failed to
meet his burden to establish a stay. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 41 at 7-8. Notably, Appellant does
not provide any arguments in either his Opening or Reply brief to explain why a stay was necessary.
See dkts. 21, 38.
Second, the Bankruptcy Court appropriately considered and applied the four factors required
to warrant a stay. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court found Appellant failed to provide a “strong
showing” that Appellant was likely to succeed on the merits of the proceeding – noting that the
2023 Bankruptcy Proceeding had been dismissed and Appellant had already been evicted from the
Property. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 41 at 7-8. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court found
Appellant provided no evidence that Appellant would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. Id. The
Page 6 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

Bankruptcy Court did note, however, that granting a stay would delay the state court proceedings –
thereby harming all parties involved in the state court action. Id. Lastly, the Bankruptcy Court
determined the public interest weighed in favor of resolving matters expeditiously. Id.
Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay or further
continuance pending resolution of the Motion to Withdraw.
B.

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
DECLINING TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ADVERSARY
PROCEEDINGS
1.

Applicable Law

“[B]ankruptcy courts may retain jurisdiction of an adversary proceeding when appropriate.”
In re Fuentes, No. AP 22-05018, 2023 WL 1466600, at *2 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023). In
determining whether to exercise discretion to retain jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court must consider
four factors: “[judicial] economy, convenience, fairness[,] and comity.” In re Carraher, 971 F.2d 327,
328 (9th Cir. 1992)
2.

Analysis

Here, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse it discretion in declining to continue to exercise
jurisdiction over the Adversary Proceeding after the 2023 Bankruptcy action was dismissed. In
exercising its discretion, the Bankruptcy Court considered all four factors – economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity. In re Carraher, 971 F.2d at 328. With respect to judicial economy, the
Bankruptcy Court noted the action had been proceeding in state court for nearly three years and was
close to trial. Adversary Proceeding, dkt. 41 at 9. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court reasonably concluded
that requiring the parties to litigate only some of the claims in a new federal proceeding made little
judicial economic sense, nor would it be fair to the parties. Id. With respect to convenience and
fairness, the Bankruptcy Court observed a majority of the parties and the 2020 Superior Court
Action were located in Los Angeles – a substantial distance from where the Bankruptcy Court is
located (in Santa Barbara). Id. Lastly, with respect to comity, the Court noted a majority of the
claims in the FAC (13 out of 16) are state claims, and none have any relation to the 2023 Bankruptcy
action, since the 2023 Bankruptcy action was previously dismissed. Id.
Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
jurisdiction over the Adversary Proceeding.
C.

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
REMANDING THE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ON EQUITABLE
GROUNDS
1.

Applicable Law

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), “[t]he court to which such claim or cause of action is removed
may remand such claim or cause of action on any equitable ground.” The “‘any equitable ground’
remand standard is an unusually broad grant of authority.” In re McCarthy, 230 B.R. 414, 417
Page 7 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999). In the Ninth Circuit, courts consider the following factors in determining
whether to remand a case on equitable grounds:
(1) the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the
estate if the Court recommends [remand or] abstention; (2) extent to
which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues; (3) difficult
or unsettled nature of applicable law; (4) presence of related
proceeding commenced in state court or other nonbankruptcy
proceeding; (5) jurisdictional basis, if any, other than § 1334; (6) degree
of relatedness or remoteness of proceeding to main bankruptcy case;
(7) the substance rather than the form of an asserted core proceeding;
(8) the feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy
matters to allow judgments to be entered in state court with
enforcement left to the bankruptcy court; (9) the burden on the
bankruptcy court’s docket; (10) the likelihood that the commencement
of the proceeding in bankruptcy court involves forum shopping by one
of the parties; (11) the existence of a right to a jury trial; (12) the
presence in the proceeding of nondebtor parties; (13) comity; and (14)
the possibility of prejudice to other parties in the action.
Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 447 B.R. 302, 311 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (citing
In re Enron Corp., 296 B.R. 505, 508 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2003)). “[A]ny one of the relevant factors may
provide a sufficient basis for equitable remand.” Id.
2.

Analysis

Here, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case on equitable
grounds because several of the recognized factors support remand. Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP,
447 B.R. at 311. For example, each of the following facts weigh in favor of remand: the absence of
an estate due to the dismissal of the 2023 Bankruptcy, the predominance of legally non-complex
state law claims in the FAC, the evidence in Appellant’s long-history of litigation that strongly
suggests forum shopping, the burden on the Bankruptcy Court’s docket to manage a proceeding
where the related bankruptcy proceeding has been closed and the state law claims predominate, and
the prejudice to Appellees of having to litigate different claims in two different courts. Adversary
Proceeding, dkt. 41 at 9-12. Considering all of these facts and the “unusually broad grant of
authority” under an equitable remand, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in
remanding the Adversary Proceeding. In re McCarthy, 230 B.R. at 417.
D.

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID NOT ERR BY ENTERING A REMAND
ORDER BEFORE WAITING SEVEN DAYS FOR OBJECTIONS
1.

Applicable Law

Under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9021-1(b)(3) (“Rule 9021-1(b)(3)”), “[u]nless the court
otherwise directs, a proposed order will not be signed by the judge unless . . . the time for objection
to a form of order properly served has expired under subsection (b)(3)(B) of this rule[,]” which
requires notice be provided to the Court within 2 days of the intent to object. “The Local
Bankruptcy Rules are rules that govern those who appear before the bankruptcy court.” In re
Page 8 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

Johnson, No. BAP CC-14-1169, 2014 WL 6953306, at *4 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2014). The Rules
“are not intended to limit the discretion of the Court.” L.B.R. 1001-1(d). “The court may waive the
application of any Local Bankruptcy Rule in any case or proceeding, or make additional orders as it
deems appropriate, in the interest of justice.” Id.
2.

Analysis

Here, under Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(d), the Bankruptcy Court acted within its
discretion to issue the Order before the two days allotted for notice of objections expired.
Moreover, even assuming the Bankruptcy Court procedurally erred, this error does not amount to a
procedural due process violation. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be
heard. In re Tennant, 318 B.R. 860, 870 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004). Appellant was given sufficient
notice to oppose the motion to remand – the motion to remand was filed on May 11, 2023, and
Appellant filed a 28-page opposition almost two months later. Adversary Proceeding, dkts. 16, 20.
In addition to the briefing, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to consider the motion to remand.
Dkt. 39. Notably, Appellant does not argue the Bankruptcy Court failed to consider any of
Appellant’s arguments in its Order. In re Malek, 591 B.R. 420, 428 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2018) (holding
a violation of the rules does not “in and of itself” amount to a violation of due process, “where a
party has been given a meaningful opportunity to be heard and the court thoroughly considered the
arguments presented”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Hence, any error was
harmless. In re Mbunda, 484 B.R. 344, 355 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012), aff’d, 604 F. App’x 552 (9th Cir.
2015) (“Genearlly speaking, [reviewing courts] ignore harmless error.”); In re Garvida, 347 B.R. 697,
704 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e do not reverse for reasons that do not affect the substantial rights
of parties.”).
Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion or violate Appellant’s
procedural due process rights when it issued the Order remanding and dismissing before the two
days permitted for objections under Rule 9021-1(b)(3).
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s November 9,
2023 Order. (JS-6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 9 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP