Stephen Law v. Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 26 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: STEPHEN LAW,                             No. 16-60041
    Debtor.                            BAP No. 15-1248
    ______________________________
    STEPHEN LAW,                                    MEMORANDUM*
    Appellant,
    v.
    EZRA BRUTZKUS GUBNER LLP,
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Chapter 7 debtor Stephen Law appeals pro se from an order of the
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his appeal as moot. We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.
    In his opening brief, Law fails to address the basis for the BAP’s order
    dismissing his appeal. As a result, he has waived any challenges to the order. See
    Smith v. Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not
    raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 
    28 F.3d 971
    , 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an
    appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).
    The BAP properly dismissed Law’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order
    imposing conditions on the release of funds because the appeal was rendered moot
    by Law’s later receipt of the funds at issue. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v.
    FDIC, 
    669 F.3d 933
    , 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An appeal is moot if no present
    controversy exists as to which an appellate court can grant effective relief.”).
    The BAP properly declined to address issues not addressed in the
    bankruptcy court’s order that is the subject of this appeal. We also decline the
    parties’ requests to address issues beyond the scope of this appeal.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   16-60041
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-60041

Judges: Wallace, Silverman, Bybee

Filed Date: 12/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024