Case ID: br_456/html/0620-01.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 Stephen LAW, Debtor, Stephen Law, Appellant, v. Cau-Min Li and Michael Goudi, Appellees.
    No. 09-60040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    Stephen Law, Chino, CA, pro se.
    Jerry Lacues, Chino Hills, CA, for ap-pellees.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen Law appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing, for lack of standing, his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting a motion to enforce settlement and directing the Chapter 7 trustee to pay $120,000 from the estate. 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 BAP properly dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because Law was not “directly and adversely affected pecuniarily” by the bankruptcy court’s order and hence did not qualify as a “person aggrieved.” Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1999).

Law’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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