Robert W. Hunt, M.D. V. , 693 F. App'x 591 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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: ROBERT W. HUNT, M.D., a No. 14-60029
Medical Corporation,
BAP No. 13-1148
Debtor.
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
PELI POPOVICH HUNT, Agent for Robert
W. Hunt M.D. Medical Corporation &
Trustee of 2007 Restated Robert & Peli
Hunt Living Trust,
Appellant,
v.
DAVID M. GOODRICH, Chapter 7
Trustee; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Los
Angeles,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Pappas, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
*
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).
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying the
corporate debtor’s claimed exemptions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP and apply the same standard of
review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Americredit Fin.
Servs., Inc. v. Penrod (In re Penrod), 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010).
To the extent Hunt is challenging the bankruptcy court’s order as the
representative of a trust or the corporate debtor, the appeal is dismissed because
Hunt, as a non-attorney, “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than
[her]self.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.
1987).
To the extent Hunt is challenging the bankruptcy court’s order directly as an
individual, the appeal is dismissed because Hunt is not a “person aggrieved” by the
bankruptcy court’s order and, therefore, lacks standing to prosecute the appeal.
See Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d
774, 777 (9th Cir. 1999).
DISMISSED.
2 14-60029