In re: John Patrick Stokes, MT-17-1085-FBKu

Debtor John Patrick Stokes filed a Chapter 13 petition on July 15, 2016 to stop a foreclosure; the court mailed the § 341 meeting notice for August 11, 2016 to his address of record.
Stokes failed to appear at the § 341 meeting; the Chapter 13 Trustee notified the court and an ex parte local-rule dismissal order was entered on August 12, 2016 and the case was closed.
Stokes moved to reopen in November 2016, the court reopened the case, and Stokes then filed a Motion to Vacate the dismissal arguing (primarily) alleged mortgage fraud by creditors and that he had mistaken or forgotten the § 341 date.
The bankruptcy court denied the Motion to Vacate on January 9, 2017; Stokes filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 26, 2017 (outside the 14-day window) and the court denied reconsideration on January 30, 2017.
Stokes appealed the dismissal, the denial of the Motion to Vacate, and the denial of reconsideration; the Panel held Stokes’ appeals of the dismissal and the Motion to Vacate were untimely, so jurisdiction was limited to review of the denial of reconsideration.
The Panel affirmed, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration under Civil Rule 60(b), because Stokes offered no new, credible, or material evidence showing mistake, excusable neglect, or fraud tied to the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Panel may review dismissal and denial of Motion to Vacate	Stokes argued dismissal and denial were erroneous	Trustee argued Stokes did not timely appeal or toll appeal periods	Appeal limited to denial of reconsideration because Stokes missed 14-day appeal windows
Whether denial of Motion for Reconsideration was an abuse of discretion	Stokes asserted excusable mistake (forgot or thought meeting was postponed)	Trustee maintained no new or convincing basis for relief; prior factual findings stand	No abuse: court reasonably rejected repeated, inconsistent mistake claims
Whether alleged creditor/Trustee fraud justified relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)	Stokes claimed Trustee colluded with creditors; proofs of claim were fraudulent	Trustee said claims were speculative, unrelated to dismissal, and unsupported	Denied: allegations were speculative, not shown by clear and convincing evidence, and not materially related to the dismissal
Whether late Motion for Reconsideration tolled appeal periods	Stokes relied on post-judgment filings to preserve appeals	Trustee asserted timing rules are jurisdictional and untimely motions do not toll	Held that untimely motions do not toll appeal deadlines; Panel lacked jurisdiction to review earlier orders

Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review; two-step inquiry)
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Thacker (In re Taylor), 599 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review and citation of Hinkson)
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) (reconsideration standard in bankruptcy context)
Preblich v. Battley, 181 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 1999) (untimely post-judgment motions do not toll appeal deadlines)
Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2004) (60(b)(3) requires clear and convincing proof of fraud that prevented full defense)
Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (discretion to grant reconsideration)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978) (appeal deadlines are jurisdictional)
Mason v. Integrity Ins. Co. (In re Mason), 709 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1983) (orders denying relief on motions to vacate are final and appealable)