Full text
In Re: Linda Marie Rutherford v. E. Lynn Schoenmann
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD, No. 21-60059
Debtor, BAP No. 21-1074
------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* JOANNIE TANG-FOK,
Appellant, v.
E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Chapter 7 Trustee; LINDA MARIE RUTHERFORD,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Gan, Taylor, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023** Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Joannie Tang-Fok appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Linda Marie Rutherford, a Chapter 7 debtor, discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a decision of the BAP, and we review the underlying bankruptcy court decision applying the same standard of review the BAP did. In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly granted a discharge to Rutherford because Tang-Fok failed to file a complaint objecting to the discharge of Rutherford’s debt or seeking to except specific debt from discharge. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 448 n.3 (2004) (noting that time restrictions to file a complaint objecting to discharge of any debt under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) or particular debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) are “practical[ly] identi[cal]”); In re Kennerley, 995 F.2d 145, 146 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that bankruptcy rules impose strict time limits for filing complaints to determine dischargeability of debts).
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
[2] 21-60059