Case Name: IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Elissa D. Miller; Peter P. Anderson, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-05
Citations: 693 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 16-56784
Parties: IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Elissa D. Miller; Peter P. Anderson, Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Elissa D. Miller; Peter P. Anderson, Appellees.
No. 16-56784
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 5, 2017
Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se
Daniel A. Lev, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Elissa D. Miller
Hatty Yip, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Peter P. Anderson
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
Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting the chapter 7 trustee's motion to pay mediation costs from estate funds. 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 court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in approving the chapter trustee's motion for disbursement of estate funds to pay certain mediation costs. 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.").
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.