NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WILLIAM EISEN,

Debtor,

------------------------------ WILLIAM EISEN,

Appellant,

v. JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, Attorney, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. No. 15

- 56478

D.C. No. 8:15

- cv - 00460

- TJH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56478

Chapter 7 debtor William Eisen appeals pro se from the district court ’s order affirming the ba

nkruptcy court’s order allowing administrative claims and

expenses

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C . § 158(d ). We review decision s of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’ s
determinations

. In re Strand , 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting the trustee’s application for pa yment of administrative claims, and overruling Eisen’s objection, because the bankruptcy court had previously denied Eisen’s motion for payment of his secured claim, and Eisen failed to appeal that denial. See In re Dant & Russell ,
Inc ., 853 F.2d 700, 707 (9th Cir. 1988) (bankruptcy court has discretion in allowing administrative claims). Contrary to Eisen’s contentions , the bankruptcy court’s prior order denying his motion was final and appealable, s ee In re P.R.T.C.,

Inc ., 177 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 19 99), and no t subject to collateral attack, s ee Celotex Corp. v. Edwards , 514 U.S. 300, 313 (1995) (f inding collateral attacks on a bankruptcy c ourt inju nction “cannot be permitted

. . . without seriously undercutting th e orderly process of the law”); In re Grantham Bros ., 922 F.2d 1438, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure of the debtors to seek any review, reconsideration, or stay of the bankruptcy court’s o rder precluded coll ateral attack3 15

- 56478

on the order by means of a la ter

- filed adversary complaint).

Eisen is estopped from claiming that the issue of the validity of his lien could only have been decided in an adversary proceeding against him where he himself brought the motion seeking to enforce his lien. See Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am ., 902 F.2d 703, 716 (9th Cir. 1990) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes parties from taking inconsistent positions in the same litigation)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in assigning this case to the Honorable Terry J. Hatter. See B adea v. Cox , 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir. 1991) (“District court judges have broad discretion regarding the assignment or reassignment of cas es.” (citation omitted)). We reject as without merit Eisen’s contention that his due process rights were violated by a purported lack of notice that the validity of his lien was at issue. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).4 15

- 56478

Eisen’s request to remand this case back to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

is denied.

AFFIRMED.