In re: WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE v. Mark Bliss;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE,
Debtor.
______________________________
WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE,
Appellant,
v.
MARK BLISS; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 16-60092
BAP No. 16-1002
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Kirscher, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor William Robert Norrie appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s December
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-60092
18, 2015 order denying Norrie’s motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), and the BAP’s order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same
standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian
v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We
review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision regarding
recosideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Norrie’s
December 16, 2015 motion because Norrie failed to demonstrate any basis for
relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60 applicable to bankruptcy
cases); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule
60(b)).
The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Norrie’s November 8, 2016
motion for reconsideration because Norrie failed to demonstrate any basis for
relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2) (motion must state with particularity each
point of law or fact that the movant believes the BAP has overlooked or
misapprehended).
We reject as unsupported by the record Norrie’s contention that the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-60092
bankruptcy court failed to state its reason for denying Norrie’s Rule 60 motion.
Norrie’s motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 36) is granted.
The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 37.
All other pending motions and requests, including appellees’ request for
judicial notice contained within Docket Entry No. 6, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --