NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PAULA PARISI,

Debtor,

______________________________ PAULA PARISI,

Appellant,

v.
PETER C. ANDERSON, United States Trustee for Region 16,

Appellee. No. 20

- 56150

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 07775

- JVS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Paula Parisi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the

* 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

JUN 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 56150

bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her Chapter 11 bankruptcy ca se. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s

decision and apply the same standard of review that the district court applied to the

bankruptcy court’s ruling. Mano

– Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re The Mortgage Stor e,
Inc.) , 773 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Parisi’s

bankruptcy case for cause because the record demonstrates that Parisi failed to

comply with the bankruptcy court’s order s to s ubmit a timely C hapter 11 plan and

related disclosure statement , and to file timely monthly operating reports

. See 11

U.S.C. § 1112( b ) (4) ( E) (explaining that failure to comply with court orders is

cause for dismissal of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition) ; Toibb v. Radloff , 501
U.S. 157, 165 (1991) (bankruptcy court has “substantial discretion” to dismiss a

Chapter 11 case).

We do not consider Parisi’s due process claims because Parisi failed to raise

them before the bankruptcy court. See In re R ains , 428 F.3d 893, 902 (9th Cir.

2005) ( explaining that “t his C ourt does not consider an issue raised for the first

time on appeal”)

.

We do not consider Parisi’s claims regarding the bankruptcy court’s denial

of Parisi’s motion to continue the automatic stay
, which was a final decision that

Parisi appealed earlier in this action. See Nat’l Env’t Waste Corp. v. City of3 20

- 56150

Riverside (In re Nat’l Env’t Waste Corp.) , 129 F.3d 1052, 1054 (9th Cir. 1997)

(“Orders granting or denying relief from the automatic stay are deemed to be final

orders.”); Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice , 352 F.3d 382, 39 2

-

9 3 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that law of the case prevented further review of a

previous decision decided on appeal), vacated on other grounds by 393 F.3d 902

(9th Cir. 2004)

. We reject as without merit Parisi’s contentions that the bankruptcy court was

biased against her
, that the distric t court erred by naming the U.S. Trustee as

appellee , or that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Parisi

to file an amended opening brief

. Parisi’s motion to substitute her reply brief (Docket Entry No. 37) is granted.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.