Case Name: IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Adina I. Zaharescu, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-24
Citations: 696 F. App'x 827
Docket Number: No. 15-55552
Parties: IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Adina I. Zaharescu, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 575
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Adina I. Zaharescu, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee.
No. 15-55552
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 24, 2017
Adina I. Zaharescu, Pro Se
Joshua Byron Norton, Esquire, Attorney, David Doss Piper, Esquire, Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, CA, Brian A. Paino, McGlinchey Stafford, Irvine, CA, for Appellee
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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
Adina I. Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing Za-harescu's chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court's decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district eourt. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zaharescu's bankruptcy case because the record supports its finding that Zaharescu filed the petition in bad faith. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); Marsch v. Marsch (In re Marsch), 36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994) (reviewing for clear error a bankruptcy court's finding of "bad faith" and for an abusé of discretion its decision to dismiss a bankruptcy case as filed in "bad faith").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. 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.