¶1*1127Tuella O. Sykes, The Law Office of Tuel-la O. Sykes, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
¶2Fred B. Burnside, Davis Wright Tre-maine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Appellee.
¶3Before: ARTHUR L. ALARCÓN, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
¶4OPINION
¶6U.S. Bank N.A. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in this bankruptcy case. To establish its standing to bring this motion, the bank submitted a copy of the promissory note with respect to which the bank sought relief from the stay. This copy was apparently a second-generation copy of the note, because it reproduced a certification affixed to the first-generation copy that stated: “We hereby certify that this is a true & correct copy of the original. CTX Mortgage Company, LLC.” The bank also submitted a declaration certifying that the original note was in the bank’s files. The trustee argued that a duplicate of a duplicate of the original note was insufficient to establish prudential standing. The bankruptcy court rejected this argument and the BAP affirmed.
¶7We agree with the First Circuit that a duplicate of a duplicate is a duplicate for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 1003. See United States v. Carroll, 860 F.2d 500, 507 (1st Cir.1988). We therefore conclude that U.S. Bank N.A., by providing a copy of a copy of the note and a declaration establishing its possession of the original note, established prudential standing to file the motion for relief from the stay.
¶8*1128A proceeding to determine eligibility for relief from a stay only determines whether a creditor should be released from the stay in order to argue the merits in a separate proceeding. Johnson v. Righetti, 756 F.2d 738, 740-41 (9th Cir.1985). Given the limited nature of the relief obtained through this proceeding and because final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue. In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 914-15 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the stay.
¶9AFFIRMED.