McKenna v. Hitt (In Re McKenna)
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Chapter 7 debtors Devon John and Cynthia McKenna appeal pro se from the *881 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order denying their motion for rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Fowler, 394 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the McKennas’ motion for rehearing because the McKennas failed to raise any point of law or fact allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the BAP concerning their lack of standing to prosecute the adversary proceeding. See id.
We reject the McKennas’ contention that the bankruptcy judge was biased against them.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In Re Devon John McKENNA; Cynthia McKenna, Debtors, Devon John McKenna; Cynthia McKenna, Appellants, v. Michael D. Hitt, Chapter 7 Trustee; Et Al., Appellees
- Status
- Unpublished