Shmuel Erde v. John Taylor

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: SHMUEL ERDE, No.
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04697-JAK
SHMUEL ERDE, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
JOHN B. TAYLOR, Esq.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
adversary action alleging fraud, fraud upon the court, violation of court order, and
breach of professional and ethical duties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without
deference to the district court’s determination. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375
F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Erde has failed to address in his opening brief any of the claims alleged in
his complaint or the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of
the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d
925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually
argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144
(9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening
brief are waived).
We do not consider Erde’s challenges to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction
in a separate action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55536