In re: WALLDESIGN, INC., a California corporation v. BRIAN WEISS, Liquidation Trustee, Walldesign, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WALLDESIGN, INC., a California
corporation,
Debtor.
------------------------------
FRANCOIS FRERES USA, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
BRIAN WEISS, Liquidation Trustee,
Walldesign, Inc.,
Appellee.
No. 18-60048
BAP No. 17-1290
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Faris, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-60048
Francois Freres USA, Inc. (“Freres”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying
reconsideration of its order disallowing Freres’s unsecured claim in Walldesign,
Inc.’s bankruptcy case. 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 affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Freres’s motion
for reconsideration because Freres failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases);
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394–97
(1993) (discussing requirements for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1)); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.),
503 F.3d 933, 940–41 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of
“catch-all provision” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).
To the extent Freres seeks to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order
disallowing Freres’s claim, we do not consider its contentions because the order is
outside the scope of this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) (court of appeals has
jurisdiction over appeals from BAP final judgments).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --