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.
Tuli v. Sprecher + Schuh Group (In re Tuli)
Citations: 335 B.R. 849; 143 F. App'x 849Docket: No. 04-15869
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 16, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Balbir Singh Tuli appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision, which upheld the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to treat previous motions to renew and reinstate as motions to withdraw the reference to district court or to transfer his case to another state. Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), with the court reviewing the denial as one of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. The bankruptcy court's refusal to reopen adversary proceedings dismissed over five years prior for failure to prosecute is affirmed. Tuli failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or provide justification for his delays and inaction in filing his case elsewhere, aligning with the principles noted in Liljeberg v. Health Service Acquisition Corp., which stipulates that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) applies only in extraordinary circumstances. The court also referenced that relief under this rule is not available when normal legal recourse has been ignored. Tuli's arguments regarding abstention are barred by a prior decision (Tuli v. Sprecher Energie A.G.), and his remaining claims are deemed without merit. The court affirms the bankruptcy court's decision, stating that without vacating the dismissal, no adversary proceeding exists for transfer or withdrawal of reference. The ruling is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.