In Re: Saa Hetep Obi Shaaim Ma v. ( 2022 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2619
__________
In re: SAA HETEP OBI SHAAIM MAA,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-20-cv-07792)
District Judge: Honorable Madeline C. Arleo
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 20, 2021
Before: RESTREPO, PHIPPS and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 19, 2022)
__________
OPINION *
___________
PER CURIAM
Saa Hetep Obi Shaaim Maa appeals pro se the District Court’s affirmance of the
Bankruptcy Court’s order granting fees and expenses to her now-former attorney.
Because Obi Shaaim Maa’s arguments are forfeited and lack merit, we will affirm.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Appellee Shmuel Klein represented Obi Shaaim Maa in Chapter 13 bankruptcy
proceedings. After about two years, he filed an application for compensation, seeking
fees of $24,024.00 and expenses of $562.80. The trustee—but not Obi Shaaim Maa—
filed objections, stating that the application did not satisfy the requirements of the local
bankruptcy rules. Klein then filed an amended application, and the trustee again
objected, stating that “[a]lthough counsel did a significant amount of work on this case
with what would appear to be a positive outcome for the debtor and estate, the most
recent fee application fails to meet the local rule requirements and the fees should not be
granted until all is resolved and corrected.” Klein again amended his application; this
time the trustee objected to certain hourly fees he claimed. Klein amended his
application once more to remove the challenged fees. Neither Obi Shaaim Maa nor the
trustee objected to this application, and the Bankruptcy Court granted it, awarding Klein
$20,982.50 in fees and $486.10 in expenses.
Obi Shaaim Maa appealed to the District Court. In her brief, she alleged that the
compensation application and retainer agreement that Klein submitted in the Bankruptcy
Court were fraudulent, and that the Bankruptcy Court erred in denying the trustee’s
motion to dismiss. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order, concluding
that Obi Shaaim Maa had forfeited her allegations of fraud by failing to raise them in the
2
Bankruptcy Court and that the trustee had not objected to Klein’s final, operative
application. Obi Shaaim Maa appealed. 1
The District Court did not err here. At the threshold, in her appellate brief, Obi
Shaaim Maa has not raised any challenges to the District Court’s rulings that she forfeited
her claims of fraud and that the trustees did not object to Klein’s final application. She
has therefore forfeited any arguments that she might have about these dispositive matters.
See In re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99, 115 (3d Cir. 2016) (“[B]ecause they fail to develop [two]
argument[s] in their opening brief, the Court holds that the [appellants] have forfeited
these claims.”); Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)
(noting that pro se litigants “must abide by the same rules that apply to all other
litigants”).
Even if Obi Shaaim Maa had not forfeited these issues in this Court, we discern no
error in the District Court’s analysis. As the Court explained, Obi Shaaim Maa never
raised her allegations of fraud before the Bankruptcy Court, and therefore forfeited
review of those claims in the District Court. See In re Venoco LLC, 998 F.3d at 109.
Further, the District Court was correct that the trustee did not object to Klein’s final,
amended application for fees, so contrary to Obi Shaaim Maa’s assertion, there was no
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We exercise plenary review over the
District and Bankruptcy Courts’ conclusions of law. See In re Venoco LLC, 998 F.3d 94,
101 (3d Cir. 2021); S’holders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1997).
3
motion to dismiss for the Bankruptcy Court to adjudicate. See Bankr. Ct. ECF No. 165
(stating, in granting the application, “no objections having been raised”).
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
4