In re: Rajinder Kumar Jawa and Debra Lynn Jawa

FILED DEC 04 2015 1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK 2 U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 4 OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5 In re: ) BAP No. CC-15-1077-KuKiTa ) 6 RAJINDER KUMAR JAWA and DEBRA ) Bk. No. 13-25539 LYNN JAWA, ) 7 ) Debtors. ) 8 ______________________________) ) 9 SPICE 4 LIFE, ) ) 10 Appellant, ) ) 11 v. ) MEMORANDUM* ) 12 JASON M. RUND, Chapter 7 ) Trustee, ) 13 ) Appellee, ) 14 ______________________________) 15 Argued and Submitted on November 19, 2015 at Pasadena, California [16] Filed – December 4, 2015 [17] Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court 18 for the Central District of California 19 Honorable Ernest M. Robles, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding [20] 21 Appearances: Dennis Winters argued for appellant Spice 4 Life; Thomas H. Casey argued for appellee Jason M. Rund, 22 chapter 7 trustee. [23] Before: KURTZ, KIRSCHER and TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judges. [25] 26 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication. 27 Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have (see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1), it has no precedential value. 28 See 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1. 1 INTRODUCTION 2 In February 2014, the bankruptcy court granted the motion of 3 chapter 71 trustee Jason Rund to revoke the debtors’ living 4 trust. Just under a year later, in February 2015, Spice 4 Life 5 filed a motion pursuant to Rule 9024 and Civil Rule 60(b) seeking 6 relief from the trust revocation order. The bankruptcy court 7 denied Spice 4 Life’s motion for relief, and Spice 4 Life 8 appealed. 9 Even if we were to reverse the order denying Spice 4 Life’s 10 motion for relief, as a matter of equity, we cannot provide 11 Spice 4 Life with any effective or meaningful relief. 12 Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal as moot. Alternately, even 13 if we were to reach the merits of this appeal, we would AFFIRM 14 because the facts in the record do not justify any relief under 15 Civil Rule 60(b). 16 FACTS 17 The controversy underlying this appeal has its roots in a 18 trust transfer deed executed, notarized and recorded in June 19 2012. On its face, the deed transferred legal title to 20 commercial real property located in Los Feliz, California from 21 Spice 4 Life to the debtors’ living trust. Based on this deed, 22 Rund filed a motion in the debtors’ bankruptcy case seeking to 23 revoke the debtors’ living trust. In his revocation motion, Rund 24 explicitly stated that he sought to revoke the trust in order to [1] 26 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 , and 27 all "Rule" references are to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rules 1001-9037. All “Civil Rule” references are to 28 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [2] 1 “obtain clear title to the Los Feliz Property” so that he “could 2 market it for sale” on behalf of the debtors’ chapter 7 3 bankruptcy estate. Rund also explicitly requested in the motion 4 that the court enter an order “confirming the assets of the 5 Debtors’ Trust are property of the bankruptcy estate.” 6 Rund did not serve a copy of the trust revocation motion on 7 Spice 4 Life, but he did serve Spice 4 Life at three different 8 addresses with a copy of his notice of motion. Spice 4 Life has 9 not disputed its receipt of this notice. In the summary on the 10 first page of the notice, Rund identified the Los Feliz property 11 by street address and asserted that the debtors’ trust held title 12 to that property. The summary further stated: “Granting this 13 Motion is in the best interests of the estate because upon the 14 revocation of the Debtors' Trust, the Bankruptcy Trustee can 15 obtain clear title to the Los Feliz Property in order to market 16 it for sale.” Notice of Motion (Nov. 26, 2013) at p. 1. 17 Immediately following the summary, the notice provides a 18 detailed account of the contents and claimed legal effect of the 19 June 2012 trust transfer deed. Among other things, the notice 20 stated that, on June 6, 2012, “the Trust Transfer Deed was 21 executed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's 22 Office, which transferred title to the Los Feliz Property from 23 Rajinder Kumar Jawa and Spice 4, Life, Inc. to the ‘Kumar Jawa 24 Revocable Living Trust Agreement as a Trustee.’” Id. In the two 25 last paragraphs of the notice, Rund advised interested parties 26 that they could obtain a copy of the trust revocation motion by 27 making a written request to Rund’s counsel of record and that any 28 party wishing to contest the motion needed to timely file a [3] 1 response at least fourteen days before the January 13, 2014 2 scheduled hearing date or any objection to the motion they might 3 have “shall be deemed waived.” 4 The hearing on the trust revocation motion was twice 5 continued, once from January 13, 2014 to January 15, 2014 and the 6 second time from January 15, 2014 to February 5, 2014.2 As a 7 result, interested parties were given over two months advance 8 notice of the hearing and were given over forty-five days to file 9 an opposition to the motion. Spice 4 Life never filed any 10 response to the motion. 11 After holding a hearing on the unopposed trust revocation 12 motion, the bankruptcy court entered its trust revocation order. 13 As originally requested in the trust revocation motion, the order 14 explicitly stated that the Los Feliz property was property of the 15 estate.3 16 Roughly six months elapsed before Rund filed his motion to 17 sell the Los Feliz property. Only then did Spice 4 Life file an 18 opposition arguing that the trust transfer deed was invalid and 19 that it owned the Los Feliz property. The parties filed lengthy 20 papers, including declarations and documentary evidence, in 21 support of their respective positions regarding Spice 4 Life’s 22 claimed ownership of the Los Feliz property. [23] 24 2 The filings reflecting the continuance of this hearing were not included in the parties’ excerpts of record, but we can and 25 do take judicial notice of the documents attached to the 26 bankruptcy court’s electronic docket in the underlying bankruptcy case. See O'Rourke v. Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, 27 Inc.), 887 F.2d 955 , 957–58 (9th Cir. 1989). 28 3 The trust revocation order was not served on Spice 4 Life. [4] 1 After holding a hearing, the bankruptcy court entered its 2 order granting Rund’s sale motion on September 30, 2014. In 3 granting the sale motion, the bankruptcy court rejected Spice 4 4 Life’s ownership claim on two alternate grounds. First and 5 foremost, the bankruptcy court held that Spice 4 Life had 6 forfeited its ownership claim by doing nothing to assert that 7 claim in response to Rund’s trust revocation motion. According 8 to the court, in conjunction with the trust revocation motion, 9 Spice 4 Life had ample notice of Rund’s position: (1) that the 10 Los Feliz Property was owned by the debtors’ trust at the time of 11 their bankruptcy filing; and (2) that the Los Feliz property 12 would become property of the debtors’ bankruptcy estate if the 13 court granted the trust revocation motion. The bankruptcy court 14 therefore concluded that, to the extent Spice 4 Life contended 15 that it owned the Los Feliz property, Spice 4 Life should have 16 opposed the trust revocation motion. As the court explained, the 17 trust revocation order was a final order that had become 18 nonappealable due to the passage of time. The court noted that 19 Spice 4 Life had stated in its sale motion opposition that it 20 intended to file a motion for relief from the trust revocation 21 order under Rule 9024 and Civil Rule 60(b); however, as the court 22 further noted, Spice 4 Life never followed through on its stated 23 intent to file the motion for relief, and there was nothing in 24 the record indicating sufficient grounds for such relief. 25 Alternately, the bankruptcy court found that, even if 26 Spice 4 Life had not forfeited its argument that it owned the 27 Los Feliz property, the evidence in the record supported the 28 bankruptcy estate’s ownership claim and did not support Spice 4 [5] 1 Life’s ownership claim. 2 The debtors, Spice 4 Life and others appealed the sale 3 order, but in an order issued in March 2015, this Panel dismissed 4 those appeals as moot. (BAP Nos. CC-14-1461, CC-14-1477 and 5 CC-14-1479.) In so ruling, we held that the sale had been 6 consummated and could not be unwound. Our appeal dismissal order 7 is final and has become nonappealable because the appeal period 8 has expired without any of the parties filing a notice of appeal. 9 After the bankruptcy court entered its sale order, Spice 4 10 Life waited another four months before it filed its motion for 11 relief from the trust revocation order under Rule 9024 and Civil 12 Rule 60. In the motion for relief, Spice 4 Life admitted it had 13 received Rund’s notice of his trust revocation motion but also 14 contended that Rund’s notice did not apprise it of Rund’s 15 position that Spice 4 Life had no interest in the Los Feliz 16 property. As Spice 4 Life reasoned, Rund also should have served 17 the full trust revocation motion on it. 18 In addition, Spice 4 Life for the first time argued that 19 Rund had utilized the wrong procedure when he sought to revoke 20 the trust. According to Spice 4 Life, because Rund’s trust 21 revocation motion sought a determination as to whether the estate 22 owned the Los Feliz property, Rund should have commenced an 23 adversary proceeding under Rule 7001(2) to obtain a determination 24 of the estate’s interest in the Los Feliz property, rather than 25 relying on contested matter motion procedures under Rule 9014 to 26 seek such a determination. In addition, Spice 4 Life reiterated 27 many of the same contentions regarding ownership of the Los Feliz 28 property it had asserted in its sale motion opposition. [6] 1 As grounds for relief from the trust revocation order, 2 Spice 4 Life claimed: (i) that the trust revocation order was the 3 product of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect 4 (citing Civil Rule 60(b)(1)); (ii) that the trust revocation 5 order was void because its due process rights were violated 6 (citing Civil Rule 60(b)(4)); and (iii) that Spice 4 Life should 7 be granted relief from the trust revocation order under the 8 catch-all provision for relief from a judgment or order (citing 9 Civil Rule 60(b)(6)). 10 The bankruptcy court rejected each of Spice 4 Life’s 11 asserted grounds for relief. In a detailed memorandum decision, 12 the bankruptcy court once again ruled, as it had when it granted 13 the sale motion, that Spice 4 Life was provided with ample notice 14 of the trust revocation motion and that it failed to raise the 15 issue of its claimed ownership of the Los Feliz property in 16 response to the trust revocation motion. 17 In addition, the bankruptcy court held that Spice 4 Life was 18 not entitled to Civil Rule 60(b) relief under any of the grounds 19 asserted because its motion for relief was not filed within a 20 reasonable amount of time. The bankruptcy court pointed out that 21 the motion for relief was filed on the eve of the one-year 22 anniversary of the entry of the trust revocation order. As the 23 bankruptcy court further explained, Spice 4 Life certainly was 24 aware of the need to seek relief from the trust revocation order 25 no later than September 4, 2014, when it stated in its opposition 26 to the sale motion that it intended to file the motion for 27 relief. As the court further pointed out, the record from the 28 sale motion proceedings reveals that Spice 4 Life already was [7] 1 aware at that time of all of the alleged facts on which it relied 2 in support of its motion for relief. And yet, the court noted, 3 Spice 4 Life still waited another several months – until 4 February 18, 2015 – before it filed the motion for relief. 5 Nothing that Spice 4 Life presented to the bankruptcy court 6 explained why Spice 4 Life waited so long to act. 7 In addition, the bankruptcy court explicitly found that, if 8 it were to excuse Spice 4 Life’s inexplicable delay, the debtors, 9 their bankruptcy estate, their creditors, and the purchaser of 10 the Los Feliz property all would be prejudiced. The court 11 focused on the fact that, in reliance on the finality of the 12 trust revocation order, Rund expended a substantial amount of 13 estate funds in negotiating the sale of the Los Feliz property to 14 the prospective purchaser and in filing and litigating the sale 15 motion. 16 The bankruptcy court also expressly rejected Spice 4 Life’s 17 due process/voidness arguments. According to the court, in light 18 of the ample notice of the trust revocation motion given to 19 Spice 4 Life and in light of the ample opportunity Spice 4 Life 20 was given to litigate its ownership claim in conjunction with 21 both the trust revocation motion and the sale motion, Spice 4 22 Life was afforded with ample due process. The court further 23 concluded that the use of contested matter procedures rather than 24 adversary proceeding procedures did not prejudice Spice 4 Life 25 and, at worst, amounted to harmless error. The court further 26 concluded that, to the extent Spice 4 Life objected to the 27 procedures employed by the bankruptcy court, the appropriate time 28 to raise those objections would have been in a direct response to [8] 1 the trust revocation motion. 2 On February 23, 2015, the bankruptcy court entered its order 3 denying Spice 4 Life’s motion for relief, and Spice 4 Life timely 4 filed a notice of appeal. 5 JURISDICTION 6 The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 §§ 1334 and 157(b)(2)(A). Subject to the mootness analysis set 8 forth below, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 . 9 ISSUES 10 1. Is this appeal moot? 11 2. To the extent this appeal is not moot, did the bankruptcy 12 court abuse its discretion when it denied Spice 4 Life’s 13 motion for relief from the trust revocation order? 14 STANDARDS OF REVIEW 15 Mootness is an issue that we have an independent duty to 16 examine, and we review that issue de novo. Hunt v. Imperial 17 Merch. Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 2009). 18 We review the bankruptcy court's order denying Spice 4 19 Life’s motion for relief under Civil Rule 60(b) for an abuse of 20 discretion. United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415 , 21 443 (9th Cir. 2011); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int'l Fibercom, Inc. 22 (In re Int'l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007). 23 The bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it applies an 24 incorrect legal rule or it makes findings of fact that are 25 illogical, implausible or without support in the record. United 26 States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 27 We may affirm the bankruptcy court on any ground supported 28 by the record. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., [1] 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Mootness Issue 4 Generally speaking, there are two forms of mootness that can 5 arise in bankruptcy cases. Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC 6 (In re Mortgs. Ltd.), 771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2014). One 7 form arises from Article III of the Constitution and renders us 8 powerless to hear the appeal when it is impossible for us to 9 grant meaningful relief. Id. The other form is a prudential, 10 judge-made rule that permits courts to decline to hear a matter 11 when granting the requested relief would be inequitable. JPMCC 12 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props., Inc. 13 (In re Transwest Resort Props., Inc.), 801 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th 14 Cir. 2015); Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. 15 (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 In this appeal, we are not presented with a situation where 17 it necessarily would be impossible to afford meaningful relief to 18 Spice 4 Life. Instead, we are confronted with the issue of 19 whether, as a matter equity, we should not grant any relief. 20 Citing In re Thorpe Insulation Co., this Panel already has 21 dismissed as equitably moot the multiple appeals taken from the 22 bankruptcy court’s sale order. As we explained there, it would 23 be inequitable at this point to unwind the sale of the Los Feliz 24 property. We further concluded that the appeals from the sale 25 order were moot notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments that 26 Rund likely will seek to invoke the preclusive effect of the sale 27 order in future proceedings anticipated to address who is 28 entitled to the net proceeds from the sale of the Los Feliz [10] 1 property. As the appellants stated: 2 While Appellants believe they have the right to make a claim on the proceeds, as long as the Judge’s [sale] 3 order and findings stand, the Trustee is certain to use the Dismissal to assert res judicata and collateral 4 estoppel as to any such claim. 5 See Motion for Rehearing on Dismissal (March 26, 2015) in BAP 6 Nos. CC-14-1461, CC-14-1477 and CC-14-1479, at p. 4. 7 Our prior determination that the sale order appeals were 8 moot is consistent with Ninth Circuit case law holding that the 9 hypothetical preclusive effect of a mooted judgment or order in 10 future proceedings generally is insufficient to invoke the 11 collateral legal consequences exception to the mootness doctrine. 12 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 511 F.3d 960, 965 (9th 13 Cir. 2007) (citing Pilate v. Burrell (In re Burrell), 415 F.3d 14 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also In re Marroquin, 2013 WL 15 2250245, at *4 (Mem. Dec.) (9th Cir. BAP May 22, 2013). 16 For the same reasons we determined that the sale order 17 appeals were equitably moot, Spice 4 Life’s current appeal – its 18 appeal from the order denying relief from the trust revocation 19 order – also is moot. Even if we were to reverse, Spice 4 Life 20 cannot at this point unwind the sale of the Los Feliz property. 21 Nor does the potential preclusive effect of the bankruptcy 22 court’s ownership ruling alter our mootness determination. We 23 reached the same holding in our dismissal of the sale order 24 appeals and that holding is law of the case. 25 In any event, it is easy enough to dispose of the 26 substantive issues raised by this appeal. Thus, as a separate 27 and independent basis for denying Spice 4 Life any relief on 28 appeal, we hold that, for the reasons set forth below, the [11] 1 bankruptcy court did not commit reversible error when it denied 2 Spice 4 Life’s motion for relief. [3] B. Civil Rule 60(b)(1) – Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or 4 Excusable Neglect 5 Spice 4 Life argues that the bankruptcy court should have 6 granted it relief from the trust revocation order under Civil 7 Rule 60(b)(1). But Spice 4 Life did not identify in its opening 8 appeal brief which specific aspect of Civil Rule 60(b)(1) relief 9 it was relying upon – mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 10 excusable neglect. Even so, we can affirm the bankruptcy court’s 11 ruling on this issue without focusing on any specific aspect of 12 Civil Rule 60(b)(1) relief. 13 Here, the bankruptcy court denied Civil Rule 60(b)(1) relief 14 because it concluded that Spice 4 Life’s motion for relief was 15 not filed within a reasonable time, as required by Civil Rule 16 60(c)(1). In Sallie Mae Serv., LP v. Williams (In re Williams), [17] 287 B.R. 787, 792-93 (9th Cir. BAP 2002), the Panel stated that 18 the timeliness determination under Civil Rule 60(c)(1) requires a 19 “case-by-case analysis” that takes into account “the interest in 20 finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the 21 litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and 22 prejudice to other parties.” Id. (citing Ashford v. Steuart, [23] 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981)). 24 The bankruptcy court’s ten-page memorandum decision amply 25 demonstrates that the bankruptcy court duly considered all of the 26 appropriate factors. The bankruptcy court specifically and 27 comprehensively discussed the length of the delay, the reason for 28 the delay, whether the delay was within Spice 4 Life’s control, [12] 1 and prejudice to other parties. The court found that all of 2 these factors demonstrated that Spice 4 Life had not filed its 3 request for relief within a reasonable time. Nothing in the 4 record indicates that those findings were illogical, implausible 5 or without support in the record. 6 In short, the bankruptcy court correctly denied Spice 4 Life 7 relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(1). [8] C. Civil Rule 60(b)(4) – Void Order Based on Lack of Due 9 Process 10 Spice 4 Life also contends that the bankruptcy court should 11 have granted it relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(4). According to 12 Spice 4 Life, the trust revocation order was void for want of due 13 process. An absence of due process can render an otherwise final 14 judgment or order void, and there is no time limit for bringing a 15 Civil Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. 16 v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 269-70 (2010); 11 Charles Alan Wright, 17 Arthur R. Miller et al., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2866 & n.4 18 (3d ed. 2015). 19 But not all procedural errors render a judgment or order 20 void. In order to render the judgment or order void, the 21 procedural error must deprive the adverse party of due process, 22 which requires “notice ‘reasonably calculated, under all the 23 circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 24 the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 25 objections.’” Espinosa, 559 U.S. at 272 (quoting Mullane v. 26 Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); GMAC 27 Mortg. Corp. v. Salisbury (In re Loloee), 241 B.R. 655, 660 (9th 28 Cir. BAP 1999). [13] 1 Spice 4 Life contends that the bankruptcy court violated its 2 due process rights by not requiring Rund to prosecute the trust 3 revocation motion in compliance with adversary proceeding 4 procedures. We agree with Spice 4 Life that there are 5 significant differences between adversary proceeding procedures 6 under Rules 7001, et seq. and contested matter procedures under 7 Rule 9014. See Ung v. Boni (In re Boni), 240 B.R. 381 , 385-86 8 (9th Cir. BAP 1999). But we disagree with Spice 4 Life that the 9 bankruptcy court violated its due process rights by not adhering 10 to adversary proceeding procedures. 11 Assuming without deciding that the bankruptcy court should 12 have required compliance with adversary proceeding procedures, 13 noncompliance at most deprived Spice 4 Life of a procedural 14 right, but it did not deprive Spice 4 Life of due process. The 15 Espinosa court explained why this is so. When as here the 16 adverse party had actual notice of the relief sought in the 17 original motion and that notice was sufficient to apprise the 18 adverse party of the relief sought in a manner reasonably 19 calculated to afford that party with an opportunity to present 20 its objections, due process concerns are not implicated. 21 Espinosa, 559 U.S. at 272 . 22 Spice 4 Life argues that the notice it received – Rund’s 23 detailed notice of motion – did not adequately apprise Spice 4 24 Life of what was at stake. According to Spice 4 Life, Rund’s 25 written notice of motion was inadequate for due process purposes 26 because the notice did not specifically state that Rund sought a 27 determination that Spice 4 Life did not own the property. We 28 disagree. In the notice of motion, Rund explicitly asserted that [14] 1 the Los Feliz property was owned by the debtor’s living trust by 2 virtue of the June 2012 trust transfer deed, which transferred 3 title from Spice 4 Life to the trust. Rund also explicitly 4 asserted that revocation of the trust was in the best interests 5 of the debtors’ bankruptcy estate because, upon revocation, the 6 estate would obtain clear title to the Los Feliz property and 7 then would be able to market the property for sale. Rund’s 8 assertions were fundamentally incompatible with Spice 4 Life’s 9 ownership claim, and Rund’s stated intent to sell the Los Feliz 10 property was patently adverse to Spice 4 Life’s ownership claim. 11 In light of these circumstances, we reject Spice 4 Life’s 12 argument that it received insufficient notice for due process 13 purposes, and we hold that the bankruptcy court correctly denied 14 Spice 4 Life relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(4). 15 D. Civil Rule 60(b)(6) – Other Grounds Justifying Relief 16 Finally, Spice 4 Life argues that the bankruptcy court 17 should have granted it relief from the trust revocation order 18 pursuant to Civil Rule 60(b)(6), which is a catchall provision 19 that permits courts to grant relief from judgments and orders on 20 equitable grounds not covered by the other provisions of Civil 21 Rule 60(b). See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int'l Fibercom, Inc. 22 (In re Int'l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2007); 23 Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078 , 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 However, Civil Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly and only to 25 prevent manifest injustice. Int'l Fibercom, 503 F.3d at 941 ; 26 United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047 , 1049 27 (9th Cir. 1993). Consequently, courts only should grant Civil 28 Rule 60(b)(6) relief when “extraordinary circumstances prevented [15] 1 a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 2 erroneous judgment.” Int'l Fibercom, 503 F.3d at 941 ; see also 3 Alpine Land & Reservoir, 984 F.2d at 1049 . 4 Here, the bankruptcy court found that Spice 4 Life had ample 5 notice and opportunity to oppose the trust revocation motion but 6 that Spice 4 Life inexplicably failed to do so. The record 7 supports the bankruptcy court’s finding, and there is nothing in 8 the record indicating any extraordinary circumstances that 9 prevented Spice 4 Life from timely opposing the trust revocation 10 motion. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not commit 11 reversible error by denying Spice 4 Life relief under Civil 12 Rule 60(b)(6). 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, Spice 4 Life’s appeal of 15 the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from the trust 16 revocation order is DISMISSED as moot. Alternately, even if we 17 were to reach the merits of this appeal, we would AFFIRM.