In re: MARK RAIMUNDO WATSON v. Ditech Financial, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MARK RAIMUNDO WATSON,
Debtor.
------------------------------
MARK RAIMUNDO WATSON,
Appellant,
v.
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC,
Appellee.
No. 17-60083
BAP No. 17-1012
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mark Raimundo Watson appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
* 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
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-60083
Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Ditech
Financial, LLC’s motion for relief from the automatic stay. 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 granting relief from the
automatic stay because Ditech Financial, LLC presented evidence establishing that
it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re
Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A proceeding to determine
eligibility for relief from a stay only determines whether a creditor should be
released from the stay in order to argue the merits in a separate proceeding. . . . [A]
party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the
property at issue.”); see also Spokane Law Enforcement Fed. Credit Union v.
Barker (In re Barker), 839 F.3d 1189, 1198 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] secured creditor,
who does not wish to participate in a Chapter 13 plan or who fails to file a timely
proof of claim, does not forfeit its lien.” (citation omitted)); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc.
(In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-60083
standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --