Peli Hunt v. Elissa Miller ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PELI POPOVICH HUNT, No. 16-56784
Debtor. D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09342-DDP
______________________________
PELI POPOVICH HUNT, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
ELISSA D. MILLER; PETER P.
ANDERSON,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the bankruptcy court’s order granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to pay
mediation costs from estate funds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy
court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. In re
Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in
approving the chapter trustee’s motion for disbursement of estate funds to pay
certain mediation costs. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the
bankruptcy court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed
waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only
issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56784