FILED AUG 16 2022 NOT FOR PUBLICATION SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: BAP No. CC-21-1226-LST DEVORE STOP, a General Partnership, Debtor. Bk. No. 6:03-bk-15174-MH

WILLIAM MORSCHAUSER, Adv. No. 6:12-ap-01498-MH Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM∗ CONTINENTAL CAPITAL LLC; STEPHEN COLLIAS; JESSE BOJORQUEZ; AMERICAN BUSINESS INVESTMENTS, Appellees.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California Mark D. Houle, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding

Before: LAFFERTY, SPRAKER, and TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judges.

INTRODUCTION

William Morschauser appeals the bankruptcy court’s order

dismissing his claims against appellees for quiet title, declaratory relief,

and an injunction pertaining to a note and deed of trust that encumbered

∗This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential 1 two parcels of real property owned by Devore Stop (“Debtor”) when it

filed its chapter 111 petition in 2003. After the case was converted to

chapter 7, the estate sold the parcels to Morschauser, one of Debtor’s

partners. The order approving that sale provided that the bankruptcy court

retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and to determine the validity of

any lien or encumbrance on the property.

Long after the case had been fully administered and closed,

Morschauser filed the adversary proceeding that is the subject of this

appeal. The bankruptcy court concluded that, despite the retention of

jurisdiction provision in the order approving the sale to Morschauser, it

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding because

the litigation was commenced long after the bankruptcy case was closed,

did not involve estate assets, did not require the court to interpret its prior

orders, and the issues consisted entirely of state law claims between non-

debtor parties. We agree. Because bankruptcy court jurisdiction is

conferred by statute, retention of jurisdiction provisions in an order cannot

create jurisdiction where there is none. We therefore AFFIRM.

value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1. 1 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the

Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532. “Civil Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 FACTS

A. Bankruptcy Events

Debtor was a partnership between Morschauser and Mohammed

Abdizadeh. Debtor filed a chapter 11 petition in 2003, listing as assets three

parcels of real property located in Devore, California (“Parcel 1,” “Parcel

2,” and “Parcel 3”). Appellee Continental Capital (“ConCap”), of which

appellee Stephen Collias was the principal and member, held two

promissory notes secured by the parcels. One of the notes (“Note 1”) was

in the principal amount of $850,000 and was secured by a deed of trust

(“DOT 1”) on Parcels 1 and 2. The other note (“Note 2”) was for the

principal amount of $150,000 and was secured by a deed of trust (“DOT 2”)

on Parcel 3.

Shortly after the petition was filed, ConCap moved for relief from

stay to enforce its notes and deeds of trust. The motion was resolved by a

court-approved stipulation to sell Parcel 1, with the proceeds to be applied

to satisfy Note 1. At the hearing, Debtor’s attorney agreed to submit an

employment application for the real estate broker, Jesse Bojorquez (owner

of appellee American Business Investments (“ABI”)). The bankruptcy court

approved the sale, conditioned upon the escrow of the broker’s

commission and a demand from ConCap on Note 1. ConCap submitted a

demand for $1,075,000. But no application to employ Bojorquez was filed,

and, in the end, the order approving the sale (the “2003 Sale Order”)

3 provided in relevant part: “The broker Jess Bojorquez has agreed to waive

his broker fees in order to consummate this sale[.]”

Unbeknownst to the court, and with Morschauser’s consent, the

escrow instructions were amended before closing to provide that ConCap

would assign Note 2 and DOT 2 to Bojorquez in exchange for his broker

services (the “2003 Assignments”). Additionally, Debtor, ConCap,

Abdizadeh, and Morschauser entered into a settlement agreement for the

sale that differed from the terms of the 2003 Sale Order. Although ConCap

had submitted a demand for $1,075,000 as the payoff on Note 1, the

settlement provided that ConCap would accept $1,175,000 “in full and

complete satisfaction” of both Notes 1 and 2, rather than the $1,253,773.99 it

was owed. In exchange for $1,100,000, ConCap agreed to release its claims

against Parcel 1 but would retain DOT 1 as to Parcel 2 to secure the

remaining $75,000. At closing, ConCap was paid $1,100,000 pursuant to the

settlement. Several months later, ConCap was allegedly paid $81,464.61 in

satisfaction of the outstanding $75,000 to prevent foreclosure of Parcel 2.

On April 1, 2004, the bankruptcy court granted the United States

Trustee’s motion to convert the case to chapter 7.

In 2005, Morschauser filed multiple actions in state court against

ConCap and others for fraud, deceit, fraudulent concealment, negligence,

and intentional infliction of emotional distress, challenging the notes and

other obligations on the grounds that his signature on the settlement

4 agreement had been forged. Judgment was entered in favor of ConCap and

affirmed on appeal.

In 2006, the chapter 7 trustee appointed in Debtor’s case filed a

motion to sell Parcels 2 and 3 to Morschauser subject to existing liens and

encumbrances, including DOT 2, which had been assigned to Bojorquez.

The sale was without prejudice to Morschauser or any party in interest

bringing an action before the bankruptcy court to determine the validity of

any lien. The bankruptcy court approved the sale in August 2007; the order

approving the sale (the “Morschauser Sale Order”) provided for the

bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction to:

(1) enforce and implement the terms and provisions of the Sale, and this Order; (2) resolve any disputes, controversies or claims arising out of or relating to the Sale or this Order; (3) interpret, implement and enforce provisions of this Order; (4) determine in subsequent action(s) the nature, exten[t] and validity of any lien or encumbrance upon the subject Property. The bankruptcy case was eventually fully administered, and it was

closed in January 2009.

B. The Adversary Proceeding

In November 2012, Morschauser commenced the adversary

proceeding that is the subject of this appeal. The complaint names as

defendants ConCap, Collias, Bojorquez, ABI, and Abdizadeh and contains

claims for: (1) quiet title; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) injunctive relief. The

complaint alleges that Notes 1 and 2 have both been paid off, the deeds of

5 trust should not continue to encumber Parcels 2 and 3, and title should be

quieted to reflect that Morschauser is the fee simple owner of both parcels.2

ConCap filed a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6),

pointing out that it had been paid off, and arguing that the bankruptcy

court lacked jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding and that in any

event the claims were time-barred. The bankruptcy court denied the

motion. The bankruptcy court rejected the argument that it lacked

jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction was proper to the extent it was

being asked to determine the effect of the 2003 Sale Order and, as provided

in the Morschauser Sale Order, to determine the nature, extent, and

validity of any lien or encumbrance on Parcels 1-3.3

Bojorquez and ABI filed a cross-complaint against ConCap and

Collias for: (1) conversion; (2) constructive trust; (3) unjust enrichment;

(4) an accounting; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) primary and secondary

indemnification and contribution. The claims were based on the allegation

that ConCap had converted the funds intended to pay off Note 2, which

had previously been assigned to him. The bankruptcy court granted

ConCap’s and Collias’s joint motion to dismiss the cross-complaint’s fourth

2 The complaint alleged that title erroneously indicated that Abdizadeh had an interest in the parcels. 3 The bankruptcy court’s ruling was not a final order. See Morrison-Knudsen Co. v.

CHG Int’l, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (“refusal to dismiss is not a final order”). 6 through sixth causes of action, leaving the claims for conversion,

constructive trust, and unjust enrichment.

Subsequently, Bojorquez, having become aware that he could not be

paid without court approval of his employment and compensation, filed an

application seeking such approval nunc pro tunc, with compensation to be

paid via the 2003 Assignments.4 The bankruptcy court denied the motion.

It was not until these proceedings that the bankruptcy court learned

of the 2003 Assignments. The bankruptcy court thus paused the adversary

proceeding to issue an order to show cause (“OSC”) why Bojorquez, ABI,

Morschauser, Collias, and ConCap should not be sanctioned for facilitating

or receiving payment for broker services in contravention of the 2003 Sale

Order.5

Eventually, the bankruptcy court approved the parties’ stipulation to

resolve the OSC with a total payment of $6,000 to the clerk of court as a de

facto sanction, $3,000 to be paid by Bojorquez and $1,500 each to be paid by

Morschauser and ConCap. Although those sanctions were relatively

modest, the bankruptcy court explained in its memorandum decision

regarding the order on appeal that it accepted the stipulation because it

lacked any effective ability to conduct discovery regarding the issues raised

by the OSC, and the parties’ information “was at times incorrect,

4 Bojorquez erroneously filed his application in the adversary proceeding rather than the main case. 5 Although issued in the adversary proceeding, the OSC probably should have

been issued in the main case, given that it involved enforcement of the 2003 Sale Order. 7 inconsistent, and seemingly affected by the passage of time.” The court also

stated, however, that it was “emphatic . . . that all three parties acted in bad

faith by their actions related to the Assignments.”

In May 2019, Bojorquez filed a motion to reconsider the order

denying his employment application and request for fees. The bankruptcy

court eventually granted the motion, but explained that its approval of the

application meant only that Bojorquez could retroactively receive the 2003

Assignments as payment, whatever their value, and subject to whatever

state law rights the parties may have regarding the assignments.

At the conclusion of the OSC proceedings, all parties moved for

summary judgment related to the quiet title action on Parcels 2 and 3. After

reviewing the pleadings, the bankruptcy court held a hearing at which it

informed the parties it did not believe it had subject matter jurisdiction

over the motions because the sole issue related to the bankruptcy case,

Bojorquez’s employment and payment, had been resolved by final order.

The bankruptcy court gave the parties an opportunity to brief subject

matter jurisdiction.

After consideration of the supplemental briefing and arguments

made by the parties on the record, the bankruptcy court concluded that it

lacked subject matter jurisdiction and entered a memorandum and order

dismissing the complaint and cross-complaint in their entirety.

Morschauser timely appealed.

8 JURISDICTION

As discussed below, the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over the complaint under

. However, we have

jurisdiction to review the court’s dismissal order under

.

ISSUE

Did the bankruptcy court err in dismissing the adversary proceeding

for lack for subject matter jurisdiction?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction. Montana

v. Goldin (In re Pegasus Gold Corp.),

(9th Cir. 2005); Davis

v. Courington (In re Davis),

(9th Cir. BAP 1995). De novo

review means that we review the matter anew, as if the bankruptcy court

had not previously decided it. Francis v. Wallace (In re Francis),

(9th Cir. BAP 2014).

DISCUSSION

Bankruptcy court jurisdiction is governed by

and

157. Bankruptcy courts, via referral from the district courts, have subject

matter jurisdiction over proceedings “arising under title 11, or arising in or

related to cases under title 11.”

(b). And

(b)(1) provides that “[b]ankruptcy judges may hear and determine all

cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or

arising in a case under title 11” that are referred to it by the district court.

Subsection (b)(2) of § 157 provides a non-exhaustive list of “core”

9 proceedings. A matter may be a core proceeding even if state law may

affect its outcome.

(b)(3).

A bankruptcy court may also exercise ancillary jurisdiction to

interpret and effectuate its orders entered in a dismissed or closed

bankruptcy case. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey,

(2009)

(bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce confirmation

and settlement orders entered in a long-closed chapter 11 case); Tsafaroff v.

Taylor (In re Taylor),

(9th Cir. 1989); Aheong v. Mellon

Mortg. Co. (In re Aheong),

(9th Cir. BAP 2002). See also Sea

Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alaska (In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass’n),

(9th Cir. 2006) (ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised to enable a court

to vindicate its authority and effectuate its decrees). When a case has been

fully administered and closed, the bankruptcy court’s ancillary jurisdiction

is extremely limited. See Battle Ground Plaza, LLC v. Ray (In re Ray),

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that bankruptcy court lacked ancillary

jurisdiction over state law breach of contract claim arising out of sale order

entered postconfirmation in chapter 11 case where plan had been

substantially consummated and case closed).

“The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests on the

party asserting that the court has jurisdiction.” Wilshire Courtyard v. Cal.

Franchise Tax Bd. (In re Wilshire Courtyard),

(9th Cir.

2013) (citing McNutt v. GM Acceptance Corp. of Ind.,

, 182–83

(1936)).

10 The bankruptcy court concluded that the adversary proceeding was

not a core proceeding “arising under” or “arising in” the bankruptcy, nor

was it “related to” the bankruptcy. The court also concluded that the

adversary proceeding did not meet the criteria for retaining ancillary

jurisdiction.

Morschauser’s arguments on appeal are difficult to discern. Most of

the argument section of his opening brief is devoted to citing statutes and

case law pertaining to bankruptcy court jurisdiction, but he presents little

to no analysis explaining how the bankruptcy court erred in its

interpretation of the applicable law. Instead, Morschauser’s entire

jurisdictional argument seems to be premised upon the retention of

jurisdiction provision in the Morschauser Sale Order. But because

bankruptcy court jurisdiction is conferred by statute, retention of

jurisdiction provisions in an order cannot create jurisdiction where there is

none. Gupta v. Quincy Med. Ctr.,

(1st Cir. 2017); Binder

v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (In re Resorts Int’l, Inc.),

(3d Cir.

2004). See also In re Ray,

n.8 (“Nor does the bankruptcy

court’s express retention of jurisdiction, alone, bring this case within its

ancillary jurisdiction.”).

A. The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the claims asserted in the adversary proceeding were not core matters arising under the Bankruptcy Code or in a case under title 11.

11 For a claim to “arise under” title 11, it must involve a cause of action

created or determined by a statutory provision of title 11. In re Ray,

. Morschauser does not argue that the claims “arise under” the

Bankruptcy Code, nor could there be any plausible argument to that effect.

They are all state law claims.

Nor do the claims “arise in” a case under the Code. A proceeding

“arises in” a case under the Bankruptcy Code “if it is an administrative

matter unique to the bankruptcy process that has no independent existence

outside of bankruptcy and could not be brought in another forum, but

whose cause of action is not expressly rooted in the Bankruptcy Code.”

(citation omitted).

The bankruptcy court found that the claims in the adversary

proceeding did not arise in the bankruptcy case. It found that the central

question was whether Bojorquez held any interest in Note 2 and DOT 2,

whether those instruments were valid and enforceable, and whether and to

what extent Note 2 had been satisfied. To the extent the claims were

against ConCap, the court found that the question of ConCap’s interest in

the parcels was “ensnared with the main issue.” As a result, the

bankruptcy court concluded that all the claims and crossclaims asserted in

the adversary proceeding were governed solely by state law. It rejected

Morschauser’s argument that the claims were “inextricably intertwined”

with the administration of the estate, noting that the 2003 Assignments to

12 Bojorquez were done outside of the bankruptcy proceedings without court

knowledge or authorization.

On appeal, Morschauser does not refute the bankruptcy court’s

interpretation of the claims asserted in the adversary proceeding. He cites

two Ninth Circuit cases where “arising in” jurisdiction was held to exist,

Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine Mills),

(9th Cir. 1995), and

Harris v. Wittman (In re Harris),

(9th Cir. 2009). Although he

does not explicitly analyze how those cases apply, we assume he believes

they support the conclusion that the claims at issue here arose in the

bankruptcy case. But both cases are distinguishable.

In Harris Pine Mills, the chapter 11 trustee sold certain estate assets.

. After the sale closed, and while the case was still pending,

the purchasers sued the trustee and others in state court for fraud,

negligence, and negligent misrepresentation surrounding the asset sale.

. The defendants removed the case to district court, which granted

their motion to refer it to the bankruptcy court over the purchasers’

objection.

After the bankruptcy court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions

for summary judgment, they appealed and cross-appealed directly to the

Ninth Circuit.

Among other things, the purchasers assigned error to the

district court’s refusal to remand their action to state court, arguing that

there was no federal jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this

argument, relying on authority from other circuits holding that

postpetition state law claims asserted by or against a bankruptcy trustee or

13 its agents for conduct arising out of the sale of property of the bankruptcy

estate qualified as core proceedings.

. It thus concluded that

the district court did not err by holding that the state law claims against the

trustee and its agents “for conduct inextricably intertwined with the

trustee’s sale of property belonging to the bankruptcy estate involved a

core proceeding subject to federal jurisdiction.”

.

In Harris, a chapter 7 debtor sued the chapter 7 trustee in state court

for breach of a bankruptcy court-approved settlement agreement, breach of

fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud.

. The trustee removed the case to the bankruptcy court,

which denied the debtor’s motion for remand.

The bankruptcy court

thereafter granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Civil

Rule 12(b)(6); debtor appealed to the district court, which affirmed.

The

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed. Relying on Harris Pine Mills,

the Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had core, “arising in”

jurisdiction over the claims because they could not exist independently

outside the bankruptcy case.

. The court of appeals reasoned that

the adversary proceeding was based on debtor’s allegation that the trustee

breached the settlement agreement by selling estate assets debtor had not

agreed to sell in exchange for a creditor’s release of claims against the

estate and assumption of estate liabilities that were allegedly released by

the settlement agreement; accordingly, the contract claim arose in the

bankruptcy case.

14 Neither Harris Pine Mills nor Harris supports a finding that the claims

at issue here are core claims arising in the bankruptcy case. The claims here

were not brought by or against a debtor or trustee, and there are no

allegations of wrongdoing in the bankruptcy case. And, importantly,

Morschauser fails to identify any bankruptcy questions underlying his

claims or any provision of the bankruptcy court’s orders that require

interpretation. Instead, he makes the bare assertion that the claims were a

“direct result” of the 2003 Sale Order and the Morschauser Sale Order. But

even though the sales took place during the bankruptcy case, this does not

mean that the claims arose in the bankruptcy case within the meaning of

(b).

[T]he fact that a matter would not have arisen had there not been a bankruptcy case does not ipso facto mean that the proceeding qualifies as an ‘arising in’ proceeding. Instead, the fundamental question is whether the proceeding by its nature, not its particular factual circumstance, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. Gupta,

(emphasis in original) (citations omitted). See also

Schultze v. Chandler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (“Core proceedings

arising in title 11 are matters that are not based on any right expressly

created by title 11, but nevertheless, would have no existence outside of the

bankruptcy.” (cleaned up)).

The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the claims were

not core claims arising in the bankruptcy case.

15 B. The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the adversary proceeding was not “related to” the underlying bankruptcy case. Proceedings that are “related to” the bankruptcy include “(1) causes

of action owned by the debtor which become property of the estate

pursuant to

, and (2) suits between third parties which have

an effect on the bankruptcy estate.” Celotex Corp. v. Edwards,

,

308 n.5 (1995) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Third

Circuit’s test for determining whether a civil proceeding is related to

bankruptcy:

“whether the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy. . . . An action is related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Feitz v. Great W. Sav. (In re Fietz),

, 457 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting

Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins,

(3d Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original).

More recently, the Ninth Circuit held that this test is overbroad in the

postconfirmation context and adopted the “close nexus” test for

postconfirmation jurisdiction articulated by the Third Circuit in In re

Resorts Int’l, Inc.,

. In re Pegasus Gold Corp.,

. 6 But the close nexus test has no application here, where there is no

confirmed plan. See In re Valdez Fisheries,

(holding that the

The Third Circuit concluded that matters affecting “the interpretation, 6

implementation, consummation, execution, or administration of the confirmed plan” 16 close nexus test did not apply to adversary proceeding between two

creditors brought after closing and dismissal of the underlying chapter 11

bankruptcy case because there was no confirmed plan and the litigants did

not claim that the dispute would have any effect on the closed bankruptcy

case).

The claims at issue here do not meet the criteria for “related to”

jurisdiction. As the bankruptcy court found, the resolution of enforceability

and ownership of Note 2 and DOT 2 will have no effect whatsoever on the

Debtor, which sold its interests in Parcels 1-3 during the bankruptcy case,

or the bankruptcy estate, which had been fully administered and closed

when the adversary proceeding was filed. On appeal, Morschauser has not

presented any argument to the contrary. The bankruptcy court did not err

in concluding that it lacked “related to” jurisdiction over the adversary

proceeding. 7

C. The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that it lacked ancillary jurisdiction.

would typically have the requisite close nexus. In re Resorts Int’l,

. 7 Apparently out of an abundance of caution, the bankruptcy court also analyzed

the factors to be applied in the Ninth Circuit in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding when the underlying case has been dismissed, i.e., economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs., Inc. (In re Carraher),

(9th Cir. 1992). The bankruptcy court correctly concluded that the factors did not support “retaining” jurisdiction. Morschauser does not argue otherwise. The adversary proceeding was filed long after the case was closed; therefore, the bankruptcy court could not “retain” jurisdiction over it, so the Carraher analysis is inapplicable. 17 As noted, a bankruptcy court may retain ancillary jurisdiction to

vindicate its authority and effectuate its decrees. In re Ray,

-

31. But, as explained above, Morschauser presents no basis for the

argument that the adversary proceeding requires interpretation or

enforcement of the bankruptcy court’s prior orders.8 He relies entirely

upon the retention of jurisdiction provision of the Morschauser Sale Order.

For all the reasons set forth above, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction

over the adversary proceeding. Therefore, the retention of jurisdiction

provision is “fundamentally irrelevant.” In re Resorts Int’l,

.

The label “retention of jurisdiction” is, to some extent, a misnomer,

and arguably unnecessary. With or without such a provision, the

bankruptcy court retains ancillary jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its

orders; a retention of jurisdiction provision is simply an acknowledgement

of the court’s ancillary jurisdiction and an indicator of the court’s

willingness to exercise it, if appropriate. And underlying such a provision

is the assumption that, if the parties later come before the court to litigate a

matter involving the prior order, the bankruptcy court will still have

subject matter jurisdiction under

and 157. In other words,

8 In Morschauser’s reply brief, he contends that Doolittle v. County of Santa Cruz (In re Metzger),

(Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006), is “most directly on point to this appeal.” There, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (not the BAP, as Morschauser asserts) exercised “related to” jurisdiction to interpret and enforce an order approving a sale of property that was entered in a different bankruptcy case. But that case is distinguishable—in Metzger, while jurisdiction may have been proper, it was neither contested nor fully analyzed, and here, the claims asserted in the adversary 18 such provisions assume that nothing will have happened to affect the

bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. As illustrated by this case, and analyzed in

many published decisions, particularly those dealing with

postconfirmation jurisdiction, this is not always true.

Here, the bankruptcy court initially concluded that it had jurisdiction

over the adversary proceeding to the extent it required interpretation or

enforcement of its prior orders. But once the court learned of the parties’

misconduct in changing the terms of the 2003 Sale Order without court

approval, it correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims

in the adversary proceeding. Where, as here, the parties themselves

changed the terms of a sale order without bankruptcy court knowledge or

approval, it is disingenuous to argue that the court “retained” jurisdiction

to resolve issues and disputes that originated from that change in terms.

A final note: in the course of analyzing the issues in the adversary

proceeding, the bankruptcy court discovered misconduct that occurred in

the main case. In addressing that misconduct, the court took actions in the

adversary proceeding that should have occurred in the main case,

specifically, the approval of Bojorquez’s employment and fee application,

and the issuance of the order to show cause for violation of the 2003 Sale

Order. But those actions did not impact the bankruptcy court’s lack of

jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding. The claims and cross-claims

asserted in the adversary proceeding were purely state law claims between

proceeding do not require the bankruptcy court to interpret or enforce its prior orders. 19 non-debtor parties that did not require the bankruptcy court to interpret or

enforce its prior orders.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing the

adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. We therefore AFFIRM.

20