IN RE: Shmuel ERDE, Debtor. Shmuel Erde, Appellant, v. Theodor Nickolas Bodnar; et al., Appellees.
Decided: December 15, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Shmuel Erde, Pro Se Theodor Nickolas Bodnar, Pro Se Mary Louisa Bodnar, Pro Se The Bodnar Family Trust, Pro Se
Chapter 11 debtor Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court's conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Erde's Rule 60(b)(4) motion because the issues set forth in the motion were actually litigated and decided in prior actions among the parties that resulted in final adjudication on the merits, or could have been raised in the prior actions. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040-42 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirements for issue preclusion under federal law); Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (requirements for claim preclusion under federal law); see also Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for application of issue preclusion and claim preclusion).
We reject as without merit Erde's contention that the BAP erred by denying his request for publication.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.