ORDER

The matter before the Court is the appeal of the “Order Converting Case to One Under Chapter 7” (“Order Converting Case”), issued by the Bankruptcy Court on October 4, 2013. (ECF No. 1).

I. Background

This is the third appeal to this Court in this bankruptcy proceeding. See In re YBA Nineteen, S.D. Cal. Case No. 13cv1326-WQH-RBB; In re YBA Nineteen, S.D. Cal. Case No. 13cv2239-WQH-RBB. 1 The Court presumes familiarity with its Orders issued in the other appeals.

A. Proceedings Prior to the October 3, 2013 Status Conference

Debtor, YBA Nineteen, LLC, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition on January 31, 2013. On March 6, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order entitled, “Order Re: Chapter 11 Petition 1) Setting Status Conference; 2) Setting Compliance Deadlines; 3) Setting Disclosure Statement and Plan Filing Deadlines; and 4) Setting Sanctions, If Appropriate, Including Dismissal, Conversion or Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee or Examiner Because of Noncompliance with Above-Reference[d] Requirements” (the “Scheduling Order”). (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. for Stay, Ex. C at 1, ECF No. 4-2 at 14). The Scheduling Order states:

Id. at 2 . The United States Trustee’s Operating and Reporting Requirements for Chapter 11 cases (“ORR”), which are incorporated in the Scheduling Order, state that a debtor must file Monthly Operating Reports no later than twenty calendar days after the close of each month. (Appellee’s Notice of Lodgment, Ex. 3 at 65 ¶ C.3., ECF No. 22).

On April 11, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a status conference. (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. G, ECF No. 4-2 at 26). The Bankruptcy Court docket reflects that Debtor did not file a status report prior to the April 11, 2013 status conference, and Debtor filed the operating report for February (which was due on March 20, 2013) on the day of the conference, April 11, 2013. Id. The Bankruptcy Court’s Minute Order from the April 11, 2013 status conference states: “Hearing continued to 7/18/13 at 10:30 to hear the [Disclosure Statement] & Plan. Debtor to set the claims bar date. Amend Sch[edules] B & D.” (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. D, ECF No. 4-2 at 17).

On April 22, 2013, Debtor filed the operating report for March. (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. G, ECF No. 4-2 at 27). On May 8, 2013, Debtor filed the operating report for April. Id. at 28 . On May 31, 2013, Debtor filed an amendment to Schedules A and B (although Debtor did not amend Schedule D). Id. at 30 . On July 16, 2013, Debtor filed the operating reports for May (which was due on June 20, 2013) and June. Id. at 33 . On July 18, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a status conference. Id. at 34 . The Bankruptcy Court docket reflects that Debtor did not file a disclosure statement, a plan or a status report prior to the July 18, 2013 status conference. Id. The Bankruptcy Court’s Minute Order from the July 18, 2013 status conference states: “Hearing continued to 9/5/13 at 11:00, [Disclosure Statement] to be filed by 7/22/13.” (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. F, ECF No. 4-2 at 21).

On July 22, 2013, Debtor filed a Disclosure Statement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1125 . (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. G, ECF No. 4-2 at 35). On August 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order scheduling a status conference and hearing on the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement for October 3, 2013. Id. at 38 .

On September 11, 2013, Debtor filed the operating report for July (which was due on August 20, 2013). Id. at 42 .

On September 19, 2013, Appellee and secured creditor IndyMac Venture, LLC filed an “Opposition to Approval of Disclosure Statement and Suggestion That Case Be Converted to a Case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code at Case Status Hearing.” (Appellee Notice of Lodgment, Ex. 4, ECF No. 22 at 73). This document states:

Id. at 75 .

On September 27, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a Tentative Ruling denying approval of the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement. (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. I, ECF No. 4-2 at 54). The Bankruptcy Court stated that “a plan based on retention of the property is problematic at best”; the treatment of the claims of Mr. Banayan and his company Aviara are “inconsistent”; “the promises made to creditors under this plan” are “illusory”; and there is no remedy provided if monthly adequate protection payments to IndyMac are not made or the property is not repaired. Id.

On October 3, 2013, the day of the status conference, Debtor filed a status report (which was due on September 26, 2013). (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. J, ECF No. 4-2 at 56-57). The status report states that Debtor is “willing to submit on the tentative ruling of the Bankruptcy Court.” Id. at 56 . The remainder of the two-page status report argues that “IndyMac’s improperly proposed motion to convert the case to chapter 7 should be denied.” Id. at 57 .

The Bankruptcy Court docket reflects that Debtor did not file an operating report for August (which was due on September 20, 2013) or September as of the October 3, 2013 status conference or any time thereafter. (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. G, ECF No. 4-2 at 47).

B. October 3, 2013 Status Conference

At the October 3, 2013 status conference, counsel for Appellee IndyMac stated:

(Suppl. Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. Stay, Ex. 7 at 5-6, ECF No. 20-8 at 6-7). Counsel for IndyMac argued that “there’s ... lack of compliance with [the Bankruptcy Court’s March 6, 2013] status conference order”; the requirement that a status report be filed seven days before any con *294 tinued status hearing was violated; the “monthly operating reports are missing” or “chronically late throughout the entire case”; the most recent monthly operating report on file was the July report, which is “demonstrably false and contains a false financial statement”; “there was an initial date set for disclosure statement in this case [and] the debtor just blew through the deadline to file the disclosure statement, didn’t file it, wound up at the last hearing on case status, and you gave the debtor a reprieve and you gave the debtor a new deadline”; “[ajfter nine months the debtor has not paid a dime of adequate protection to my client”; “[i]f this case fails, which it’s been on the edge of failing consistently, and there is no money in this estate, we will have a house that is more exposed to the winter rain than as it presently stands”; “the accrual of administrative expenses is a serious issue in this case and reflects a continuing loss and diminution that, coupled with a lack of prospect of rehabilitation in the case, which was just confirmed this morning by denial of the disclosure statement, is cause for conversion under 1112(b)(4)(A)”; “[IndyMac] would prefer to deal with a disinterested fiduciary who can look at the assets in this estate ... and with whom we can deal to resolve this estate and it’s not just an estate which can keep tripping down the calendar without resolution. And so we support conversion....” Id. at 6-11 .

The Bankruptcy Court then asked counsel for Debtor to “please address that.” Id. at 11 . Counsel for Debtor stated that “there is no noticed motion by IndyMac, I think the appropriate way to proceed.... ” Id. The Bankruptcy Court stated: “[Y]ou do know that the Court has a continuing OSC on Chapter 11 cases and that there does not have to be a motion by IndyMac. The Court has made its own motion.” Id. at 12 . Counsel for Debtor stated:

Id. at 12 .

Counsel for Debtor stated: “if the Court wants further explanation of what is being done and what the process is to protect the property, we’d submit something on rather short notice and would be happy to do so, your Honor.... The operating report for August could be submitted today if the debtor is given time. And we would make sure that in the future....” Id. at 13-14 . The Bankruptcy Court stated: “[Y]our client has not submitted timely operating reports almost as a matter of course.” Id. at 14 . The Bankruptcy Court noted that the last operating report in the case was submitted for July; it was submitted late; and it was “inaccurate, as [IndyMac’s counsel] pointed out.” Id. The Bankruptcy Court asked counsel for Debtor if there was “anything further?” Id. Counsel for Debtor stated:

Id. at 14-16 .

Counsel for IndyMac stated: “The ending balance, your Honor, on the July monthly operating report for this estate is $65.13, less than the amount that’s necessary to pay for telephone bills that are showing up on the July monthly operating report.... There’s no money in this estate, unless Mr. Banayan, out of his good graciousness and strategic desire, drops it into the estate-And I think that dropping that status report into the record within a couple of hours of a status conference in a case like this is not enough and it’s time for a conversion.” Id. at 16 .

The Bankruptcy Court asked counsel for Debtor if there was “anything further?” Id. at 17 . Counsel for Debtor stated: “No, your Honor. I don’t think there’s really anything to add. As I think has been established, the debtor ... has put a lot into this case, has been obviously very busy with the relief from stay matters, has done everything to protect the property within its power. It is doing everything within its power at this time to protect that property.... The debtor believes there is a way to get equity out of this property and pay off creditors, and that’s the direction that it has been going at all times and that’s the direction it hopes to continue to push forward on.” Id. at 17-18 .

The Bankruptcy Court then stated that it was going to “convert this case to one under Chapter 7.” Id. at 19 . The Bankruptcy Court stated:

Id. at 19-21 .

C. Order Converting Case

On October 4, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued the Order Converting Case. (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. K, ECF No. 4-2 at 65-69). The Order Converting Case states:

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds, and for good cause ORDERS, that:

Id. (citations omitted).

D. Appeal

On October 8, 2013, Debtor filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order Converting Case. (ECF No. 1). On October 8, 2013, Debtor filed an election to have the appeal heard by this Court. Id.

On November 7, 2013, Debtor filed its opening brief. (ECF No. 20). Debtor contends:

Id. at 4-5 . Debtor requests this Court to reverse the Order Converting Case and “withdraw the Bankruptcy Court’s reference with relation to this bankruptcy.” Id. at 33 .

On December 20, 2013, IndyMac filed its opposition brief. (ECF No. 21). IndyMac contends:

Id. at 5 .

On December 20, 2013, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a brief. 2 (ECF No. 23). The Chapter 7 Trustee contends that the Debt- or was accorded due process; the Debtor’s argument based on due process has been waived; and the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to convert the case.

On January 10, 2014, Debtor filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 26). Debtor contends that IndyMac and the Chapter 7 Trustee “point to additional alleged failures of the Debtor” which “are not issues that were considered [by] the Bankruptcy Court and should be ignored.” Id. at 8 . “The Debtor requests that the District Court stick to the actual findings of the Bankruptcy Court and see them for what they are, just another effort to ignore the facts of the case and establish a clear bias against the Debtor.” Id. Debtor objects to the Chapter 7 Trustee’s brief on the basis that the Trustee does not have standing to oppose Debtor’s appeal because “the Trustee was not in existence at the time of the conversion order, it was only created after the order was entered.” Id. at 22 .

On January 31, 2014, the Court heard oral argument. (ECF No. 31).

II. Discussion

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1). See In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 770 (9th Cir.2008) (“[A] bankruptcy court order converting a ease from one under another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code to one under Chapter 7 is a final and appealable order.”).

Debtor’s brief identifies two issues in this appeal: (A) “the Bankruptcy Court denied the Debtor due process on the Conversion Order”; and (B) “the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion by entering the Conversion Order.” (ECF No. 20 at 23, 26). All parties agree that the standard of review for the first issue is de novo, and the standard of review for the second issue is abuse of discretion. (ECF No. 20 at 22-3; ECF No. 21 at 6; ECF No. 23 at 7).

A. Due Process

The Supreme Court set forth the due process requirements for notice as follows:

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (citations omitted). “The adequacy of notice and hearing respecting proceedings that may affect a party’s rights turns, to a considerable extent, on the knowledge which the circumstances show such party may be taken to have of the consequences of his own conduct.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). For example, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit has held: “A dismissal without notice and an opportunity to be heard would not be appropriate where substantive issues are to be determined, but if a case involves only very narrow procedural aspects, a court can dismiss a Chapter 13 case without further notice and a hearing if the debtor was provided with notice of the requirements to be met. Thus, a procedure is perfectly appropriate that notifies the debtor of the deficiencies of his petition and dismisses the case sua sponte without further notice and a hearing when the debtor fails to file the required forms within a deadline.” In re Tennant, 318 B.R. 860, 870-71 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (quotations omitted).

The March 6, 2013 Scheduling Order requires the Debtor to submit “all operating reports due under ORR C.3.” and submit a status report “no later than one week in advance of this status conference and before every continued hearing of this Chapter 11 status conference.” 3 (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. C at 2, ECF No. 4-2 at 15). The Scheduling Order states that “[fjailure to file this status report or comply with the requirements ordered by the Court may be cause to ... convert this case ... as permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) and 1112(b).” Id. The Scheduling Order informs Debtor of what it is supposed to do, when it is supposed to do it, and the possible consequences of failure to do it. The Bankruptcy Court provided counsel for Debtor with the opportunity at the October 3, 2013 status conference to address IndyMac’s argument that conversion was appropriate “based on the record that’s before the Court today” due to “lack of compliance with [the Bankruptcy Court’s] status conference order,” including the untimely filing of the status report and the “monthly operating reports [which] are missing” or “chronically late throughout the entire case.” (Suppl. Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. Stay, Ex. 7 at 5-6, 8, ECF No. 20-8). The Scheduling Order and the October 3, 2013 hearing provided Debtor with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard to meet due process requirements. See In re Bijelonic, No. CV 11-08077-JVS, 2012 WL 2263289 , at *5 (C.D.Cal. June 15, 2012) (holding that a bankruptcy court’s initial scheduling order “provided sufficient notice and opportunity to present evidence to meet due process requirements” when the bankruptcy court sua sponte converted a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 because a debtor failed to comply with an initial scheduling order by not submitting a status report prior to the second status con *300 ference and failing to appear at the second status conference).

Debtor contends that, prior to the October 3, 2013 status conference, Debtor had not been warned about its failure to comply with the Scheduling Order. No party submitted the transcripts from the April 11, 2013 and July 18, 2013 status conference. The only record from these status conferences in the appellate record are the brief minute orders issued after each conference, and the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Converting Case, which states that, at the April 11, 2013 status conference, Debtor was “directed to file a plan and disclosure statement in time to have it considered in conjunction with” the July 18, 2013 status conference and amend Schedules B and D. (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. K, ECF No. 4-2 at 67). The minute order from the April 11, 2013 status conference confirms this, see Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. D, ECF No. 4-2 at 17, as do the uncontradicted comments of IndyMac’s counsel at the outset of the October 3, 2013 status conference, see Suppl. Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. Stay, Ex. 7 at 9, ECF No. 20-8 (“there was an initial date set for disclosure statement in this case [and] the debt- or just blew through the deadline to file the disclosure statement, didn’t file it, wound up at the last hearing on case status, and you gave the debtor a reprieve and you gave the debtor a new deadline”). As stated in the Order Converting Case, Debtor failed to comply with this order to file a disclosure statement and plan prior to July 18, 2013, and at the July 18, 2013 hearing, the Bankruptcy Court “[o]nce again ... ordered the Debtor to file its plan and disclosure statement.” (Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. K, ECF No. 4-2 at 67). Accordingly, at least with respect to Debtor’s failure to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s initial order to file a disclosure statement and plan, Debtor received a warning and an extension of time.

To the extent the Bankruptcy Court converted the case for failure to comply with the requirements in the Scheduling Order (including the requirement to timely comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s other orders, such as the April 11, 2013 order to timely file a disclosure statement and plan and amend Schedule D), the Court finds that the Scheduling Order and the October 3, 2013 status conference provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard to satisfy due process requirements.

Even if the Bankruptcy Court failed to provide Debtor with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, Debtor has failed to show that it was prejudiced by any defective process afforded it. See In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 777 (9th Cir.2008) (“Because there is no reason to think that, given appropriate notice and a hear ing, Rosson would have said anything that could have made a difference, Rosson was not prejudiced by any procedural deficiency. We hold that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and converting the case to Chapter 7.”); In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 959 (9th Cir.1994) (rejecting due process claim for lack of prejudice where debtor could not show that any different or additional arguments would have been presented if bankruptcy court had timely approved petition for new counsel). In the appellate briefing, Debtor has proferred its reasons for failing to comply with the Scheduling Order: “Debt- or was heavily burdened with emergency filings in order to protect the Subject Property”; “the Subject Property is vacant and is not generating income”; and “the Bankruptcy Court and Debtor have been in constant contact on the case through the continuing relief from stay, *301 appeal, and hearings on the motion for relief from stay.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 25, ECF No. 20 at 28; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. at 16, ECF No. 26 at 19 (“Debtor had been understandably preoccupied with the appeal of the second relief from stay order and with repairs to the Subject Property.”). These reasons were brought to the Bankruptcy Court’s attention by Debtor’s counsel, see Suppl. Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. Stay, Ex. 7 at 17-18, ECF No. 20-8 at 18-19 (“As I think has been established, the debtor has been ... obviously very busy with the relief from stay matters, has done everything to protect the property within its power.”), or the Bankruptcy Court was aware of them at the October 3, 2013 hearing, see id. at 19 (the Bankruptcy Court stated at the outset of its oral ruling that the Scheduling Order is “basically a way to keep the cases moving forward, especially one such as this one, where there is one asset and no income”). Debtor has failed to demonstrate that, given more notice, Debtor “would have argued any differently.” In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d at 959 (“CEA ... contends that the bankruptcy court violated due process by failing to approve CEA’s petition for new counsel before the hearing on Lincoln’s motion .... At no point does CEA explain how its counsel would have argued any differently had formal approval been granted. Indeed, CEA’s arguments on appeal are essentially the same as those raised by its owners in the bankruptcy court.”).

Applying de novo standard of review, the Court will not reverse the Order Converting Case based upon any denial of due process.

B. Order Converting Case

The second issue is whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion by entering the Order Converting Case. “The bankruptcy court is given wide discretion to convert a chapter 11 case to chapter 7 for cause, and an order for conversion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” In re Greenfield Drive Storage Park, 207 B.R. 913, 916 (9th Cir. BAP 1997). “[T]he first step of our abuse of discretion test is to determine de novo whether the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested. If the trial court failed to do so, we must conclude it abused its discretion.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-62 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). If the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested, the reviewing court must then determine whether the trial court’s “resolution of the motion resulted from a factual finding that was illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Id. at 1263 ; see also In re Hernandez, 483 B.R. 713, 719 (9th Cir. BAP 2012) (same).

1. Whether the Bankruptcy Court Applied the Correct Legal Standard

The bankruptcy code provides:

11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b). “[T]he term ‘cause’ includes—

11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(4). “Cause is a flexible standard, subject to the Court’s discretion, and does not necessarily involve one or all of the those factors set forth in Section 1112(b)(4).” In re Prods. Int’l Co., 395 B.R. 101,107 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2008).

A bankruptcy court is empowered to convert or dismiss a Chapter 11 case sua sponte. See 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) (“No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.”); see also In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764 , 771 n. 8 (9th Cir.2008) (“Although the statute provides for conversion ‘on request of a party ... or the ... trustee, ... ’ there is no doubt that the bankruptcy court may also convert on its own motion.”) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a)); In re Labankoff, No. 09-1300-PAJUK, 2010 WL 6259969 , at *5 (9th Cir. BAP June 14, 2010) (collecting cases).

In its oral ruling at the October 3, 2013 status conference and in the Order Converting Case, the Bankruptcy Court relied upon the “cause” factors listed in 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(4)(A), (E) and (F). The Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court applied the correct legal standard to determine whether the case should be converted.

2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court’s Finding Was Illogical, Implausible, Or Without Support

The Court must next determine whether the Bankruptcy Court’s “resolution of the motion resulted from a factual finding that was illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1263 .

The Scheduling Order and the incorporated ORR required Debtor to timely file monthly operating reports, file a status report no later than one week prior to any status conference, and otherwise comply with the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. As set out above, Debtor filed the February, May and July operating reports late, and failed to file the August operating report. Debtor failed to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s April 11, 2013 order to file the Disclosure Statement and Plan pri- or to the July 18, 2013 status conference. Debtor failed to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s April 11, 2013 order to amend Schedule D. Debtor filed the status report for the October 3, 2013 status conference on the day of the conference, rath *303 er than a week before, as it had been ordered to do in the Scheduling Order. 4

“The statute does not indicate that compliance with orders should be measured by viewing all orders together and weighing how many the debtor is in compliance with and how many it is not. The statute is written in the singular; thus failure to comply with a single order is sufficient for cause.” In re Bijelonic, No. CV11-8077-JVS, 2012 WL 2263289 , at *4 (C.D.Cal. June 15, 2012) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(4)(E)). Based upon the facts listed above, the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that Debtor failed to comply with the Scheduling Order and ORR is not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.

Debtor contends that the Bankruptcy Court should have found that converting the case was not appropriate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(2). That provision requires the Bankruptcy Court to not convert a case “if the court finds and specifically identifies unusual circumstances establishing that converting or dismissing the case is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate” and if the court makes additional findings, including that “the grounds for converting or dismissing the case include an act or omission of the debtor ... for which there exists a reasonable justification for the act or omission.” Id. The Bankruptcy Court did not make the predicate finding of identifying unusual circumstances establishing that converting the case was not in the best interests of creditors and the estate. Even if such unusual circumstances existed, after considering the justifications proferred by Debtor at the October 3, 2013 hearing and in the subsequent appellate briefing, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no reasonable justification exists for the Debtor’s failures to comply with the Scheduling Order. Cf. In re Hoyle, No. 10-01484-TLM, 2013 WL 210254 , at *9 (Bankr.D.Idaho Jan. 17, 2013) (“Section § 1112(b)(4)(E) provides that ‘failure to comply with an order of the court’ constitutes cause to convert or dismiss a chapter 11 case.... [F]ailure to comply with a court order need not be willful, in bad faith, or fraudulent, because a debtor takes on the responsibilities required by the Code in availing himself of its protections.”); In re Whetten, 473 B.R. 380, 383-84 (Bankr.D.Colo.2012) (“To allow a debtor to sidestep [its] duties simply because he is ‘busy’ would render the Code’s reporting requirements a nullity.... The late filing of catch-up monthly reports does not satisfactorily explain or excuse failure to satisfy a debtor’s duties as a chapter 11 debtor.... Monthly reports and the financial disclosures contained within them are the life-blood of the Chapter 11 process and are more than mere busy work.... The reporting requirements provide the primary means for monitoring the debtor’s compliance with the Code’s requirements and they serve as a litmus test for a debtor’s ability to reorganize .... If a debtor does not fulfill this basic obligation during the Chapter 11 case, when it knows it will have to come before the court on any number of occasions, how can the creditors have any confidence that the debtor will timely and accurately report its income and make the required distributions under its plan, when the court and the [United States Trustee] *304 are no longer monitoring the case? Consequently, the importance of filing monthly reports cannot be over-emphasized. A debtor ignores this basic duty at its own peril.”); In re Babayoff, 445 B.R. 64, 80 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2011) (“[I]n the bankruptcy context, if a debtor wants the protection the Bankruptcy Code offers, that debtor must be willing to abide by the orders a court enters.... [T]o reap the benefit of chapter 11, the debtor must pay the price of disclosure; he or she needs to provide financial and other relevant information to the creditors to inform them and the Court about the progress and status of the case.”) (quotations omitted).

The Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to convert the case did not result from a factual finding that was illogical, implausible, or -without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.

Having determined that the Bankruptcy Court provided adequate due process and did not abuse its discretion in converting the case based upon Debtor’s failure to comply with the Scheduling Order (“cause” grounds (1) and (2) in the Order Converting Case), any argument regarding the substantial and continuing loss to or diminution of the estate (“cause” ground (3) in the Order Converting Case) would not affect the outcome of the appeal. 5 Even considering Debtor’s arguments as to “cause” ground (3) and record on appeal, the Court finds that Debtor received notice as to IndyMac’s argument that the Bankruptcy Court should convert the case for substantial and continuing loss to or diminution of the estate, see Appellee Notice of Lodgment, Ex. 4, ECF No. 22 at 73-75 (“Opposition to Approval of Disclosure Statement and Suggestion That Case Be Converted to a Case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code at Case Status Hearing,” filed September 19, 2013), and Debt- or had an opportunity to be heard in the October 3, 2013 status report and at the October 3, 2013 status conference. The Bankruptcy Court’s decision as to “cause” ground (3) did not result from a factual finding that was illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record, and was not an abuse of discretion.

C. Trustee’s Standing

Debtor objects to the Trustee’s brief on the basis that the Trustee does not have standing to oppose Debtor’s appeal. The Court overrules Debtor’s objection as moot, finding that, even if the Trustee does not have standing, the Court considers the Trustee’s brief as an amicus curiae. See In re Heath, 331 B.R. 424, 429-30 (9th Cir. BAP 2005) (considering trustee’s brief as an amicus brief “even if Trustee cannot appear as a party” due to lack of appellate standing); cf. Fed. R.App. P. 29 (an amicus curiae brief may be filed with leave of court). The Court makes no finding as to the Trustee’s standing on appeal.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order Converting Case is AFFIRMED. *305 The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

. In the second appeal, the Court issued a stay preventing Appellee IndyMac Venture, LLC from taking any further action as to the real property at issue. (S.D. Cal. Case No. 13cv2239, ECF No. 6).

. On November 13, 2013, the United States Trustee filed in the underlying bankruptcy case a report of the election of Nancy Wolf as the Chapter 7 Trustee. (Req. Judicial Notice Supp. Br. Appellee Trustee, ECF No. 23-1 at 3-6).

. ORR C.3. states that the debtor must file Monthly Operating Reports no later than twenty calendar days after the close of each month. (Appellee’s Notice of Lodgment, Ex. 3 at 65 ¶ C.3., ECF No. 22).

. Debtor failed to file status reports prior to the April 11, 2013 and July 18, 2013 status conferences, but the Bankruptcy Court did not rely upon these facts in reaching its decision, and this Court does not rely upon them in determining whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in converting the case.

. The Order Converting Case lists the grounds for "cause” as follows:

(Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. For Stay, Ex. K, ECF No. 4-2 at 69).