22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T522,MEMORANDUM Soon Wha Chey and her son, David Chey, appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion for relief from an automatic stay with respect to certain real property. 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 bankruptcy stay to Wells Fargo because the Cheys no longer had a legal or equitable interest in the subject property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(1) (allowing bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay for cause); Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.1990) (cause for lifting the stay may exist where a state court proceeding involving the same issues is pending). The Cheys’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, are denied. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T559,

MEMORANDUM

Soon Wha Chey and her son, David Chey, appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion for relief from an automatic stay with respect to certain real property. 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 bankruptcy stay to Wells Fargo because the Cheys no longer had a legal or equitable interest in the subject property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(1) (allowing bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay for cause); Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.1990) (cause for lifting the stay may exist where a state court proceeding involving the same issues is pending).

The Cheys’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, are denied.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.