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:T531,MEMORANDUM Appellant Dan Jenks challenges the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over this case and its decision to dismiss Jenks’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm. Jenks’ complaint challenges the validity of a bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the sale of real property. His case is related to the original bankruptcy case. Thus, federal jurisdiction exists and removal from state court was proper. See McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 911-12 (9th Cir.2008) (“A civil proceeding is ‘related to’ a title 11 case if ‘the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.’ ” (quoting In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455 , 457 (9th Cir.1988))). The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the complaint because Jenks impermissibly seeks to collaterally attack a final order of the bankruptcy court. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 148-54 , 129 S.Ct. 2195 , 174 L.Ed.2d 99 (2009) (holding that, if a party or its predecessor in interest had an opportunity to challenge a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction to issue an order, the party may not collaterally attack the order in subsequent proceedings). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55e,

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Dan Jenks challenges the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over this case and its decision to dismiss Jenks’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

Jenks’ complaint challenges the validity of a bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the sale of real property. His case is related to the original bankruptcy case. Thus, federal jurisdiction exists and removal from state court was proper. See McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 911-12 (9th Cir.2008) (“A civil proceeding is ‘related to’ a title 11 case if ‘the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.’ ” (quoting In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455 , 457 (9th Cir.1988))). The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the complaint because Jenks impermissibly seeks to collaterally attack a final order of the bankruptcy court. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 148-54 , 129 S.Ct. 2195 , 174 L.Ed.2d 99 (2009) (holding that, if a party or its predecessor in interest had an opportunity to challenge a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction to issue an order, the party may not collaterally attack the order in subsequent proceedings).

AFFIRMED.

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