Whether a bankruptcy court's summary judgment ruling and denial of reconsideration can be overturned when the appellants fail to demonstrate legal error or abuse of discretion

No question identified. : PROOF OF SERVICES I, Ivan Vechioli Cruz, do swear or declare that on this date, March 14, 2025, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed Petition for an Extension of Time to Submit a Writ of Certiorari on each party to the above proceeding, or that party’s counsel and to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circle, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid. The names and addresses of those served are as follows: Modesto Bigas Mendez Law Office in: Urb. Santa Maria, #515, Ferrocarril Street, Ponce, P.R. 00717 United States Court of Appeals for the First Circle John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse Anastasia Dubrovsky, Clerk of the Court 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2500 Boston, MA 02210 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Fy March 14, 2025 Moria Ivan Vechioli Cruz Case: 24-1290 Document: 00118235700 Page:1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 —_ Entry ID: 6693225 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1290 IN RE: IVAN VECHIOLI CRUZ; HELEN IVIS FELICIANO BORRERO, Debtors, IVAN VECHIOLI CRUZ; HELEN IVIS FELICIANO BORRERO, Appellants, KIYOMI M. SANTOS ONODA, Appellee. Before Gelpi, Montecalvo and Rikelman, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT Entered: January 15, 2025 Debtors-appellants Ivan Vechioli Cruz and Helen Ivis Feliciano Borrero ("debtors") seek review of two orders of the bankruptcy court: 1) an order granting summary judgment in favor of creditors-appellees Kiyomi M. Santos Onoda and CESKI, Inc., and 2) an order denying debtors' motion for reconsideration. A first-tier appeal to the district court ended in affirmance. We assume, without deciding, that both of the challenged rulings properly arc before the court in this secondtier appeal. This court reviews the bankruptcy court's decision directly, without affording special deference to the district court's intermediate decision. See In re Francis, 996 F.3d 10, 16 (ist Cir. 2021); see also In re Reyes-Colon, 922 F.3d 13, 17 (1st Cir. 2019) ("[O]nce a notice of appeal to this court has been filed, the operative ruling under review is the bankruptcy court ruling, with the Case: 24-1290 Document: 00118235700 Page:2 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 — Entry ID: 6693225 {] district court ruling serving more or less like an amicus brief (albeit one that can be extremely helpful)."). In undertaking this review of the bankruptcy court's reasoning, the court reviews factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and any judgment calls for abuse of discretion. See In re Francis, 996 F.3d at 16. This court reviews a bankruptcy court's denial of reconsideration for manifest abuse of discretion’ due to the significant discretion granted to trial courts when deciding reconsideration motions." In re Buscone, 61 F.4th 10, 35 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting ACA Fin. Guar, Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46, 55 (ist Cir. 2008)). Having carefully considered each of the arguments set out in their brief, we conclude that debtors have failed to demonstrate any legal error or abuse of discretion in either of the challenged rulings. See Mullane v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 113 F.4th 123, 130 (1st Cir. 2024) (summary judgment standard of review); Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co., 700 F.3d 585, 590 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard of review applicable to preclusion determination); see_also Deaton v. Town of Barrington, 100 F.4th 348, 361 (1st Cir. 2024) (standard of.review applicable to motion for reconsideration); Alston v. Town of Brookline, 997 F.3d at 23, 41 (1st Cir. 2021) (holding that litigants must "spell out" their arguments "squarely and distinctly” or risk waiver). Accordingly, we affirm. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). By the Court: Anastasia Dubrovsky, Clerk ce: Ivan Vechioli Cruz Helen Ivis Feliciano Borrero Modesto Bigas Méndez Monsita Lecaroz-Arribas Case: 24-1290 Document: 00118242565 Pag