NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WALLDESIGN, INC., a California No. 18-60048 corporation, BAP No. 17-1290 Debtor.

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM*

FRANCOIS FRERES USA, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

BRIAN WEISS, Liquidation Trustee, Walldesign, Inc.,

Appellee.

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). 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 18-60048