Robert Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT C. KONOP, No. 08-16128
Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00223-DAE-
BMK
and
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF MEMORANDUM *
UNSECURED CREDITORS,
Creditor,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Reorganiized Debtor - Chapter 11
Bankruptcy Case No. 03-00817,
Appellee,
and
JOSHUA GOTBAUM and OFFICE OF
THE U.S. TRUSTEE,
Trustees.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming
the bankruptcy court’s order denying Konop’s motion to amend or clarify his proof
of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review decisions of
the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s
determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Konop’s proof of
claim did not include a request for equitable relief because the claim summary
focused on monetary damages and included only a single, past-tense reference to
equitable relief. See Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d
1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for
clear error). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop’s
motion to have oral argument held in Pasadena, California, is denied.
2 08-16128
Konop’s motion to amend the proof of claim as untimely. See Roberts Farms Inc.
v. Bultman (In re Roberts Farms), 980 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992).
Konop’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Konop’s request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-16128