Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rogers v. California Federal Bank
Citation: 11 F. App'x 840Docket: No. 00-16683; BAP No. NC-99-01521-RKMa
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 4, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Julia Ann Rogers appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s affirmation of the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of her complaint against California Federal Bank (CalFed), which she alleged involved conspiracy, emotional distress, wrongful disclosure, conversion, abuse of process, and interference with contractual interest, all related to CalFed’s foreclosure during an automatic stay that was later annulled by the Bankruptcy Court. Rogers contends that the Bankruptcy Court erred in annulling the automatic stay and lacked jurisdiction over her complaint. The court finds Rogers's request to reconsider the annulment of the automatic stay to be improperly before them, as she did not appeal the Bankruptcy Court's relief from the stay. Instead, she filed a state court complaint against CalFed for violating the stay, making that complaint the focus of the current case. Rogers also argues that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction, contending that CalFed waived its right to remove the case to federal court and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. However, she did not raise the issue of improper removal before the Bankruptcy Court, and objections to removal must be made within thirty days after the notice of removal. The court clarifies that while jurisdictional issues can be raised at any time, the specific objection related to removal was not timely. Despite Rogers's claims regarding jurisdiction, her complaint, which alleged a violation of the automatic stay, falls under federal law. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising under Title 11 of the U.S. Code, and the Bankruptcy Court appropriately exercised its jurisdiction in this case. The court ultimately affirms the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of Rogers's claims. This decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in other cases, except where permitted by specific circuit rules.