United States v. 2020-12-15 | 19-60063 | SHMUEL ERDE V. THEODOR BODNAR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SHMUEL ERDE,

Debtor.

------------------------------

SHMUEL ERDE,

Appellant,

v.

THEODOR NICKOLAS BODNAR; et al.,

Appellees.

No. 19-60063

BAP No. 19-1023

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Taylor, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 11 debtor Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

*
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

DEC 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-60063
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
denying his motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy
court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Decker v.
Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Erde’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion because
the issues set forth in the motion were actually litigated and decided in prior
actions among the parties that resulted in final adjudication on the merits, or could
have been raised in the prior actions. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60
applicable to bankruptcy cases); Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032,
1040-42 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirements for issue preclusion under federal law);
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001)
(requirements for claim preclusion under federal law); see also Reyn’s Pasta Bella,
LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for
application of issue preclusion and claim preclusion).
We reject as without merit Erde’s contention that the BAP erred by denying
his request for publication.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.