In re: GARY JAMES SROKA v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, DBA Mr. Cooper, c/o NBS Default Services, LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: GARY JAMES SROKA,
Debtor,
______________________________
GARY JAMES SROKA,
Appellant,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, DBA
Mr. Cooper, c/o NBS Default Services,
LLC; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 20-56303
D.C. No. 8:19-cv-02496-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gary James Sroka appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
* 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
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56303
bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Sroka’s adversary proceeding. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo a district court’s
decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of
review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v.
Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.
1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Sroka’s adversary proceeding for
lack of standing because Sroka’s claims were property of the bankruptcy estate at
the time he filed his adversary proceeding, and therefore could only be brought by
the trustee. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (after commencement of a bankruptcy case,
any legal interests of the debtor, including property interests, belongs to the
bankruptcy estate); Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2001)
(explaining that if a debtor fails to schedule a legal claim in a proper manner, that
claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sroka’s first
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without
leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --