Teresa Jean Moore v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA JEAN MOORE,
Appellant,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Appellee,
RICHARD A. YANAGI; OFFICE OF
THE U.S. TRUSTEE,
Trustees - Appellees.
No. 12-17000
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00607-DAE-
BMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Teresa Jean Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC’s
motion for relief from the automatic stay with respect to certain real property. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the
bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s
determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the
automatic stay with respect to certain real property because Bayview established
that it had a colorable claim to the property. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin),
719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (explaining that “because final
adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay
relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue”);
Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir.
2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision to
grant relief from an automatic stay).
Moore’s contention that the bankruptcy court and district court violated her
constitutional rights is unsupported by the record.
2 12-17000

-- 2 of 3 --

We treat Moore’s request for judicial notice and the attached documents,
filed on January 18, 2013, as her excerpts of record.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17000

-- 3 of 3 --