Case ID: br_574/html/0523-02.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: Peter F. BRONSON; Sherri L. Bronson, Debtors, Peter F. Bronson; Sherri L. Bronson, Appellants, v. Thomas M. Thompson, Appellee.
    No. 16-60099
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 18, 2017
    Peter F. Bronson, Pro Se
    Sherri L. Bronson, Pro Se
    Jimmie D. Smith, Attorney, Jimmie D. Smith, Yuma, AZ, for Appellee
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their state law claims and closing an adversary proceeding. 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 the Bronsons’ state law claim and closing the adversary proceeding because the underlying bankruptcy proceeding is complete. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs., Inc. (In re Carraher), 971 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is within the bankruptcy court’s discretion subject to considerations of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity).

We do not consider the Bronsons’ contentions regarding the merits of the underlying adversary proceeding, which are not within the scope of this appeal.

The appellee’s request for sanctions and attorney’s fees, set forth in the answering brief, is denied.

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