eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-03

Andrew Shalaby v. ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: FAROUK E. NAKHUDA,                       No. 19-60022
Debtor.                         BAP No. 18-1139
ANDREW W. SHALABY,                              MEMORANDUM*
Appellant.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Brand, Kurtz, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Attorney Andrew W. Shalaby appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Shalaby’s April
14, 2018 Rule 60(b) motion to amend a sanctions order. We have jurisdiction
under
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy
*
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). Shalaby’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
court’s ruling on a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Phillips v.
Gilman (In re Gilman),
    887 F.3d 956
    , 963 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shalaby’s Rule
60(b) motion because Shalaby failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Latshaw v.
Trainer Wortham & Co.,
    452 F.3d 1097
    , 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing
required showing for Rule 60(b)(6) relief and explaining that relief may be granted
“only where extraordinary circumstances” are present (citations and quotation
marks omitted)); SEC v. Coldicutt,
    258 F.3d 939
    , 941 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing
conditions under which a court may modify an order under Rule 60(b)(5)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Shalaby’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied
as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2                                  19-60022