Case ID: br_468/html/0662-01.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 Shepard JOHNSON and Monte Johnson, Debtors, Shepard Johnson, Appellant, v. UST—United States Trustee, Sacramento; et al., Appellees.
    No. 10-60002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2011.
    Shepard Moore Johnson, Granite Bay, CA, pro se.
    Monte Johnson, Granite Bay, CA, pro se.
    UST—United States Trustee, Sacramento, pro se.
    J. Russell Cunningham, Desmond Nolan Livaich & Cunningham, Robert Dale Ginter, Kelly Lois Pope, Esquire, Downey Brand, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shepard Johnson appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving a settlement agreement between the Chapter 7 trustee and the Solarte lot owners. 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 Boyarjian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the settlement agreement because the facts in the record establish that the compromise was fair, reasonable, equitable, and adequate. See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986) (approval of a compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual foundation establishing that the compromise was fair, reasonable, and adequate).

Johnson’s remaining contentions, including that the bankruptcy court failed to make specific findings of fact, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.