Case ID: f-appx_709/html/0507-01.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: Louis C. NEMETH, Debtor. Louis C. Nemeth, Appellant, v. Amrane Cohen, Chapter 13 Trustee; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Appellees.
    No. 17-60019
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      
      Submitted January 16, 2018
    Filed January 25, 2018
    Louis C. Nemeth, Pro Se
    Jay K. Chien, Esquire, Amrane Cohen, Chapter 13 Trustee, Orange, CA, for Ap-pellee Amrane Cohen
    Bonni S. Mantovani, Esquire, Attorney, Prober & Raphael, A Law Corporation, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R, App. P. 34(a)(2). To the extent that Nemeth requests oral argument in his opening brief, the request is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Louis C. Nemeth appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Nemeth’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 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 dismissing Nemeth’s petition because Nemeth failed to make plan payments or post-petition mortgage payments. See 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(4) (permitting dismissal for failure to make payments under the proposed payment plan); Bankr. C.D. Cal. R. 3015-1(m)(2), (7) (permitting dismissal for failure to make post-petition mortgage payments).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as without merit Nemeth’s contention that his due process rights were violated and that the 180-day bar to refiling was improper.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.