Case Name: IN RE: Jon W. CHAFFEE, Debtor. B. Casey Yim, Appellant, v. Jon W. Chaffee, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 17-60036
Parties: IN RE: Jon W. CHAFFEE, Debtor. B. Casey Yim, Appellant, v. Jon W. Chaffee, Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 641–641

Head Matter:
IN RE: Jon W. CHAFFEE, Debtor. B. Casey Yim, Appellant, v. Jon W. Chaffee, Appellee.
No. 17-60036
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 23, 2018
B. Casey Yim, Pro Se
Jon W. Chaffee, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
B. Casey Yim appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment in favor of debtor Jon Chaffee in an adversary proceeding regarding the discharge of Yim's claim. 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. Anastas v. Am. Sav. Bank (In re Anastas), 94 F.3d 1280, 1283 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Yim failed to demonstrate that his claim satisfied the elements for non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). See id. (factual determinations of whether elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) are satisfied are 'reviewed for clear error); Ghomeshi v. Sabban (In re Sabban), 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010) (creditor has burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that § 523(a)(2)(A) elements are met).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening briefs, 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.