Gibson v. Speier (In Re Gibson)

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DONALD RAY GIBSON and No. 11-60057
SANDRA MAE GIBSON,
BAP No. 11-1028
Debtors,
MEMORANDUM *
DONALD RAY GIBSON; SANDRA
MAE GIBSON,
Appellants,
v.
STEVEN M. SPEIER, Trustee; JURUPA
VALLEY SPECTRUM,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Markell, Kirscher, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
*
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).
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Donald Ray and Sandra Mae Gibson appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
approving a compromise agreement between creditor Jurupa Valley Spectrum
(“Jurupa”) and trustee Speier. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We
review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the
BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re
Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the
compromise agreement because the record supports its conclusion that the
compromise was fair and equitable. See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784
F.2d 1377, 1380, 1383 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review, explaining
that the bankruptcy court’s failure to make specific findings does not constitute an
abuse of discretion where the record supports approval of the compromise
agreement, and noting that a court may approve a compromise agreement only
where it is fair and equitable); see also United States v. Alaska Nat’l Bank of the N.
(Matter of Walsh Constr., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982) (in approving
a compromise agreement, “[t]he bankruptcy court need not conduct an exhaustive
investigation into the validity of the asserted claim”).
2 11-60057
The Gibsons’ contentions that Speier was biased in favor of Jurupa is
unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-60057