Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. U.S. Trustee ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 16 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,                            No. 18-16904
    Appellant,                      D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06577-BLF
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    U.S. TRUSTEE; et al.,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 9, 2020**
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Debtor Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order discharging the chapter 13 trustee
    and closing the bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d).
    We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court,
    *
    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).
    and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy
    court’s decision. Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.),
    
    912 F.2d 1162
    , 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
    The bankruptcy court properly discharged the chapter 13 trustee and closed
    Sepehry-Fard’s case after the trustee filed a final report and account certifying that
    the bankruptcy estate had been fully administered. See 
    11 U.S.C. § 350
    (a) (“After
    an estate is fully administered and the court has discharged the trustee, the court
    shall close the case.”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009 (chapter 13 trustee’s final report and
    account creates a presumption that the estate has been fully administered if no
    objection has been filed); Kir Temecula v. LPM Corp. (In re LPM Corp.), 
    300 F.3d 1134
    , 1136 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review).
    We reject as without merit Sepehry-Fard’s contentions that the bankruptcy
    court lacked jurisdiction or violated his constitutional rights, or that the chapter 13
    trustee violated any fiduciary duties.
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    All pending motions and requests, including all requests set forth in the
    opening and reply briefs, are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      18-16904