In Re: Coeptis Equity Fund LLC v. Janina Hoskins

facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our

ruling. We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s decision to convert a

case to Chapter 7 and its denial of a Rule 9024 motion. In re Consol. Pioneer Mortg.

Entities, 264 F.3d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 2001); In re Gilman, 887 F.3d 956, 963 (9th

Cir. 2018).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in converting this case from

Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. Coeptis argues that it was not provided with sufficient

notice of the hearing on the motion to convert and that it was not timely served with

notice of the motion. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(a)(4) and Local

Rules 2002-1(a) and 9014(1)(c)(2) of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Northern District of California require 21 days’ notice of a hearing on a motion to

convert a Chapter 11 case.1 The motion to convert this case was filed on April 15,

1 Coeptis argues that 28 days’ notice was required pursuant to Local Rule 9014-1(c)(1). The bankruptcy court rejected this argument. To the extent that

2 2022, exactly 21 days before the hearing on May 6, 2022. Thus, notice was

sufficient.

Coeptis…