Stinson

Stinson v. Cook Perkiss & Lew, APC

Good Law
128 F. App'x 30
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 1, 2005Nos. 03-16339, 03-16559; BAP Nos. NC-02-01094-RyKJ, NC-02-01116-RyKJCalifornia604 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Debtor, Charles Stinson, appeals a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”). The creditor, Bi-Rite Restaurant Supply, Inc. (“Bi-Rite”) and its attorney, Cook, Perkiss & Lew (“Cook”), cross-appeal. “Because we are in as good a position as the BAP to review bankruptcy court rulings, we independently examine the bankruptcy court’s decision, reviewing the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” In re Hatton, 220 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2000).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bi-Rite’s request to retroactively annul the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court properly balanced the equities in the case pursuant to In re National Environmental Waste Corp., 129 F.3d 1052 , 1054-56 (9th Cir. 1997), weighing Stinson’s delay in asserting the defense and lack of prejudice against Bi-Rite’s clear notice of the bankruptcy and long-term failure to correct the stay violation. Annulment of the stay is an extraordinary remedy reserved for unusual situations, In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123, 126 (9th Cir.1989), and, on this record, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by…

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.