Pyle

Pyle v. Keenan

Good Law
31 F. App'x 421
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 21, 2002No. 99-56213; D.C. No. CV-98-02105-TJWCalifornia274 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Judy Keenan (“Keenan”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d), and we affirm.

We review the bankruptcy court’s decision independent of the district court’s decision. See Prestige Ltd. P’ship-Concord v. E. Bay Car Wash Partners (In re Prestige Ltd. P’ship-Concord), 234 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2000). We review a bankruptcy court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See Hammer v. Drago (In re Hammer), 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir.1991).

Despite Keenan’s awareness of the bankruptcy court’s entry of default judgment, she failed to file her Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment within a reasonable time. See Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 520-21 (9th Cir.1987). Furthermore, the trustee has relied on the finality of the default judgment to transact substantial business for the bankruptcy estate and reopening the case would prejudice these undertakings. See Hammer, 940 F.2d at 525-26 . Thus, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keenan’s Rule…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.