NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DEMAS WAI YAN, Debtor, DEMAS WAI YAN, Appellant,
v. TONY FU; CRYSTAL LEI; WEI SUEN; BRYANT FU; STELLA HONG CHEN, Appellees. 12-15204 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01814-RS

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2014 ** San Francisco, California 

# FILE D
MAR 18 201 4 MOLLY C. DWYER, C L

U.S. COURT OF APPE A

* 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).Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circ uit Judges, and GARBIS, Senior District Judge. *** Demas Yan (“Yan”) appeals from the decision of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his cross-complaint in one of a series of lawsuits related to his bankruptcy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and we affirm. A bankruptcy estate includes all legal a nd equitable interests in property held by the debtor at the time of filing, including all causes of action the debtor could have brought outside bankruptcy. In re Jess , 169 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S.C. § 541(a)). Yan contends thathis cross-complaint alleged acts giving rise to causes of action that accrue d both before and after conversion to bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court did not agree but granted Yan leave to amend the cross-complaint to specify the postpetiti on nature of his claims. Yan declined to do so, choosing instead to appeal to the district court. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 633 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011), we agree that the clai ms as alleged accrued prepetition or that Yan could reasonably have contemplated th e claims’ existence prior to the petition date. Thus, the claims were “sufficiently rooted in the pre-bankruptcy past,” and

*** The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.are properly included as property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541. Segal v. Rochelle , 382 U.S. 375, 380 (1966). While Yan may have been able to present adequate claims in an amended cro ss-complaint, he chose not to do so. Accordingly, affirmance of the bankruptcy court was appropriate. Appellees filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 requesting that we impose sanctions on Yan, an attorney, for filing a frivolous appeal. We grant Appellees’ motion for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 “An appeal is considered frivolous if the result is obvious or the appellant’s arguments are wholly without merit.” Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren , 913 F.2d 1406, 1417 (9th Cir. 1990). Yan’s position in this appeal is wholly without merit. We therefore impose attorneys’ fees and double costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. The determination of an appropriate am ount of fees on appeal is referred to the court’s special master, Appellate Commissioner Peter Shaw, who shall conduct

1 Yan, although an attorney when th e appeal was filed, was later suspended and has proceeded pro se. In vi ew of our application of Rule 38, it is not necessary to rely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (referring to an “attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases” who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings) although our precedent would permit such reliance. See Wages v. I.R.S. , 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 3whatever proceedings he deems appropria te, and who shall have the authority to enter an order awarding fees. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9. AFFIRMED
. Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice and First Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in support of Appellees’ Motion for Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees
are GRANTED
. Appellees’ Motion for Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED
.

4