Amr Mohsen v. Carol Wu

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: AMR MOHSEN, No. 08-60031
Debtor. BAP No. NC-07-1188-McPaMk
MEMORANDUM *
AMR MOHSEN,
Appellant,
v.
CAROL WU, Chapter 7 Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
McManus, Pappas, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument, and we therefore deny Mohsen’s request for oral argument. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LS/Research
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving settlement of
litigation between the bankruptcy trustee and the insurer of Mohsen’s fire-damaged
home. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo
the BAP’s decision, Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt), 171 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th
Cir. 1999), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the
settlement because the record reflects the weaknesses of the lawsuit and the benefit
of avoiding the delays, expense, and uncertainty of continued litigation. See
Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating
that where the record supports the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement, the bankruptcy court’s approval of the settlement should be affirmed).
Contrary to Mohsen’s contention, the bankruptcy court’s failure to address his
objections to the settlement explicitly was also not an abuse of discretion. Id. at
1383-84.
Mohsen’s due process contention fails because he availed himself of the
opportunity to present written objections to the bankruptcy court. See Partington
LS/Research 2
v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 865 (9th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that due process does not
necessarily require the opportunity to present arguments orally).
Mohsen’s request for judicial notice is denied. See Santa Monica Food Not
Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining
to take judicial notice of documents that were not relevant to the resolution of the
appeal).
Mohsen’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
LS/Research 3