Case Name: IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Daniel A. Capen, M.D.; et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-05
Citations: 693 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 14-55845
Parties: IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Daniel A. Capen, M.D.; et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Daniel A. Capen, M.D.; et al., Appellees.
No. 14-55845
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 5, 2017
Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se
Paul R. Pearlson, Esquire, Cameron & Pearlson, Long Beach, CA, for Appellees Daniel A. Capen, Amir Azizi, Timothy J. Hunter, Khiem D. Dao, Howard J. Mar-ans, Maryam Azizi, Robert A. Rafael
Daniel A. Lev, Esquire, Bankruptcy. Counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Elissa D. Miller
Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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
Chapter 7 debtor Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se.from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order converting Hunt's chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 7 proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.
In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in converting Hunt's bankruptcy case. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the bankruptcy court's order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.").
We reject as meritless Hunt's contentions that the district court and bankruptcy . court lacked jurisdiction and demonstrated bias.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.