Daniel Everett v. Paul Boschetti , 689 F. App'x 564 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DANIEL EVERETT, No. 15-17203
Debtor. D.C. No. 4:14-cv-03873-CW
______________________________
DANIEL EVERETT, MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAUL BOSCHETTI,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Everett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming
the bankruptcy court’s order denying Everett’s “motion for damages and voiding
*
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).
of judgments for violation of automatic stay.” 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, 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 denied Everett’s motion because Everett
failed to show that the entry of stipulated judgment in accordance with the parties’
settlement agreement or payment of his state court initial appearance fee was
outside the scope of the order granting relief from the automatic stay. See Griffin
v. Wardrobe (In re Wardrobe), 559 F.3d 932, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2009) (order
granting relief from the automatic stay is effective as to claims pending in the state
court at the time).
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. See Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990,
998 (9th Cir. 2014); Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17203