Case Name: ESTATE OF Joseph J. STUDNEK, by and through its personal representative, Joseph M. STUDNEK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-17
Citations: 312 F. App'x 18
Docket Number: No. 07-17050
Parties: ESTATE OF Joseph J. STUDNEK, by and through its personal representative, Joseph M. STUDNEK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 18–18

Head Matter:
ESTATE OF Joseph J. STUDNEK, by and through its personal representative, Joseph M. STUDNEK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-17050.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2008.
Filed June 17, 2008.
Taz F. Evans, Esq., Evans Dove & Nelson, Mesa, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph L. Williams, San Lorenzo, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from the district court's order granting appellee's motion to enforce a settlement agreement, entering judgment based on the agreement, and granting a motion for attorneys' fees and costs against appellant.
On March 14, 2008, this court issued an order denying appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Appellant was ordered to pay the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and to simultaneously show cause why • the judgment challenged in this appeal should not be summarily affirmed.
On April 7, 2008, this court received notification from the district court that appellant had paid the fees. Appellant did not submit a response to the order to show cause; however, on April 14, 2008, appellant filed his opening brief.
A review of the record, the opening brief, and appellant's filings in this matter, indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.