Paula Parisi v. Peter Anderson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PAULA PARISI, No. 20-56150
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07775-JVS
______________________________
PAULA PARISI, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
PETER C. ANDERSON, United States
Trustee for Region 16,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Paula Parisi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the
*
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).
bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s
decision and apply the same standard of review that the district court applied to the
bankruptcy court’s ruling. Mano–Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re The Mortgage Store,
Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Parisi’s
bankruptcy case for cause because the record demonstrates that Parisi failed to
comply with the bankruptcy court’s orders to submit a timely Chapter 11 plan and
related disclosure statement, and to file timely monthly operating reports. See 11
U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(E) (explaining that failure to comply with court orders is
cause for dismissal of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition); Toibb v. Radloff, 501
U.S. 157, 165 (1991) (bankruptcy court has “substantial discretion” to dismiss a
Chapter 11 case).
We do not consider Parisi’s due process claims because Parisi failed to raise
them before the bankruptcy court. See In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 902 (9th Cir.
2005) (explaining that “this Court does not consider an issue raised for the first
time on appeal”).
We do not consider Parisi’s claims regarding the bankruptcy court’s denial
of Parisi’s motion to continue the automatic stay, which was a final decision that
Parisi appealed earlier in this action. See Nat’l Env’t Waste Corp. v. City of
2 20-56150
Riverside (In re Nat’l Env’t Waste Corp.), 129 F.3d 1052, 1054 (9th Cir. 1997)
(“Orders granting or denying relief from the automatic stay are deemed to be final
orders.”); Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 352 F.3d 382, 392-
93 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that law of the case prevented further review of a
previous decision decided on appeal), vacated on other grounds by 393 F.3d 902(9th Cir. 2004).
We reject as without merit Parisi’s contentions that the bankruptcy court was
biased against her, that the district court erred by naming the U.S. Trustee as
appellee, or that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Parisi
to file an amended opening brief.
Parisi’s motion to substitute her reply brief (Docket Entry No. 37) is granted.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-56150