Peter Bronson v. Thomas Thompson ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 18 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L.              No. 16-60099
    BRONSON,
    BAP No. 16-1050
    Debtors,
    ______________________________
    MEMORANDUM*
    PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L.
    BRONSON,
    Appellants,
    v.
    THOMAS M. THOMPSON,
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Jury, Faris, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Submitted July 11, 2017**
    Before:      CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson appeal pro se from a judgment of
    *
    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 Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
    dismissing their state law claims and closing an adversary proceeding. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and
    apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s
    ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 
    564 F.3d 1088
    , 1090 (9th
    Cir. 2009). We affirm.
    The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the
    Bronsons’ state law claim and closing the adversary proceeding because the
    underlying bankruptcy proceeding is complete. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs.,
    Inc. (In re Carraher), 
    971 F.2d 327
    , 328 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of
    review and explaining that whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is
    within the bankruptcy court’s discretion subject to considerations of judicial
    economy, fairness, convenience, and comity).
    We do not consider the Bronsons’ contentions regarding the merits of the
    underlying adversary proceeding, which are not within the scope of this appeal.
    The appellee’s request for sanctions and attorney’s fees, set forth in the
    answering brief, is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      16-60099
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-60099

Filed Date: 7/18/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021