Robert Van Zandt v. William Parisi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ROBERT FRANKLIN VAN No. 15-15526
ZANDT,
D.C. No. 4:14-cv-03711-CW
Debtor.
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD SPENCER MAZZAFERRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM PARISI; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro appeals pro se from the district court’s order
*
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). Accordingly, appellant’s
request for oral argument, set forth in his motion to consolidate, is denied.
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order entering a pre-filing order against
Mazzaferro and the district court’s order denying Mazzafaerro’s motion to vacate.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same
standard of review applied by the district court. In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d
700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy
court’s order because Mazzaferro filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days
after entry of the order. See Fed. R. App. P. 6(b). Mazzaferro’s untimely motion
to vacate filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) did not extend the appeal period. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 6(b)(1) (notice of appeal from district court decision must
be filed within 30 days; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) does not apply in appeals governed
by Fed. R. App. P. 6); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022 (motion for rehearing must be filed
within 14 days to toll appeal period); see also Theodore v. Daglas (In re D.W.G.K.
Restaurants, Inc.), 42 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal
because untimely motion for rehearing did not extend period to appeal district
court’s final order).
Though the notice of appeal was timely as to the district court’s order
denying Mazzaferro’s motion to vacate, Mazzaferro does not address the order in
his opening brief. As a result, he has waived any challenges to the order. See
2 15-15526
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not
raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28
F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).
Mazzaferro’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15526