Zaharescu v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 696 F. App'x 827 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ADINA I. ZAHARESCU, No. 15-55552
Debtor. D.C. No. 2:13-cv-06606-VAP
______________________________
ADINA I. ZAHARESCU, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Adina I. Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming
the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Zaharescu’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district
court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards
of review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869,
879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zaharescu’s
bankruptcy case because the record supports its finding that Zaharescu filed the
petition in bad faith. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); Marsch v. Marsch (In re Marsch),
36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994) (reviewing for clear error a bankruptcy court’s
finding of “bad faith” and for an abuse of discretion its decision to dismiss a
bankruptcy case as filed in “bad faith”).
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55552