Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the MATTER OF: Robert W. HUNT, M.D., DBA Intercommunity Medical Group, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Peter C. Anderson, United States Trustee; David M. Goodrich, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellees.
    No. 16-55646
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 5, 2017
    Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se
    Dare Law, Trial Attorney, Hatty Yip, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Peter C. Anderson
    David Gould, Esquire, Gould & Gould LLP, Calabasas, CA, for Appellee David M. Goodrich
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court’s pre-filing order entered against a vexatious litigant. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

In her opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for filing the appeal in violation of the district court’s pre-filing order. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge, to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]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.”).

Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider her arguments challenging bankruptcy court orders.

All pending motions are denied.

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