Case ID: br_574/html/0587-01.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: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Elissa D. Miller; Peter P. Anderson, Appellees.
    No. 16-56784
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed July 5, 2017
    
      Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se
    Daniel A. Lev, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Elissa D. Miller
    Hatty Yip, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Peter P. Anderson
    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 affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to pay mediation costs from estate funds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in approving the chapter trustee’s motion for disbursement of estate funds to pay certain mediation costs. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order. See 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.”).

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.