Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0890-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re TED L. VANCE & SONS, Debtor. Karp, Richardson & Derovanesian, Appellant, v. Ted L. Vance & Sons; N. James Richardson, Appellees.
    No. 00-57003.
    BAP No. SC-99-01525-RRyB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2001.
    
    Decided Dec. 28, 2001.
    
      Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The law firm of Karp, Richardson & DerOvanesian (“KRD”) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of its motion to reopen the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of general contractor Ted Vance & Sons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s ruling on a motion to reopen, Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner), 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Because it was not satisfied that settlement efforts had been exhausted, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying KRD’s motion to reopen. See Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 950 (9th Cir.1995).

We decline to impose sanctions against appellant under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.