Case Name: Robert SUMPTER, Appellant, v. YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB, LLC; New CH YMC Acquisition LLC; Cross Harbor Capitol Partners, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-25
Citations: 584 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 13-35277
Parties: Robert SUMPTER, Appellant, v. YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB, LLC; New CH YMC Acquisition LLC; Cross Harbor Capitol Partners, Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 676–676

Head Matter:
Robert SUMPTER, Appellant, v. YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB, LLC; New CH YMC Acquisition LLC; Cross Harbor Capitol Partners, Appellees.
No. 13-35277.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 4, 2014.
Filed Aug. 25, 2014.
Stephen C. Mackey, Towe, Ball, En-right, Mackey & Sommerfeld, P.L.L.P., Billings, MT, for Appellant.
James A. Patten, Attorney General, Patten, Peterman, Bekkedahl & Green, PLLC, Billings, MT, Benjamin P. Hursh, Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Missoula, MT, Michael R. Lastowski, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sumpter argues that the settlement underlying the plan isn't fair and equitable; that the plan's treatment of Class 4 claims violates 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4); that the plan was proposed in bad faith; and that the plan contains an impermissible exculpation clause. But the plan at issue in Sumpter's first appeal was identical to the one he now challenges, so he could have raised all of those arguments at that time. Accordingly, Sumpter "waived [his] right" to raise his current objections by failing to raise them in his prior appeal. See In re Cellular 101, Inc., 539 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2008); see also Munoz v. Cnty. of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811, 817 (9th Cir.1982).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.