NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: VIEN-PHUONG THI HO, No. 23-55414

Debtor. D.C. No. 2:22-cv-04194-GW ______________________________

VIEN-PHUONG THI HO, MEMORANDUM*

Appellant,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., DBA Mr. Cooper, as Trustee for Deutsche Alt- A Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1 as serviced by Nationstar Mortgage LLC,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024**

Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, 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). Vien-Phuong Thi Ho appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming

the bankruptcy court’s order granting HSBC Bank USA, N.A.’s (“HSBC”) motion

for relief from the automatic stay and denying Ho’s motion for a continuance. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo a district

court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and apply the same standard of

review applied by the district court. Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d

1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting HSBC’s

motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) because

HSBC established its standing to seek relief from the automatic stay, and the

bankruptcy court’s determination that Ho had acted with intent to hinder, delay, or

defraud creditors was not clearly erroneous. See Arkinson v. Griffin (In re Griffin),

719 F.3d 1126, 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a creditor providing a copy of

the note and a declaration establishing its possession of the original note is

sufficient to confer standing to seek relief from an automatic stay); Hughes v.

Lawson (In re Lawson), 122 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that

whether a debtor acted with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is a finding

reviewed for clear error); Kronemyer v. Am. Contractors Indem. Co. (In re

2 23-55414 Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915, 919 (9th Cir. BAP 2009) (“The decision of a

bankruptcy court to grant relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) is reviewed

for an abuse of discretion.”).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ho’s motion

for a continuance because its determination that discovery on HSBC’s standing

was unnecessary was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. See Bearchild v. Cobban,

947 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review).

We reject as unsupported by the record Ho’s contention that the bankruptcy

court did not enter factual findings and conclusions of law.

We do not consider 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 23-55414