Court Opinion

ID: 9366040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 19:01:10.10036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:49.482863
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     JAN 25 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: LAKE MATHEWS                      No. 21-55810
MINERAL PROPERTIES, LTD.,
                                                    D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07808-GW
                   Debtor.

------------------------------                      MEMORANDUM*

PAUL MERRITT,

                   Appellant,

  v.

ELISSA D. MILLER, Trustee,

                   Appellee.

                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Central District of California
                        George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

                                 Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:        GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

       Paul Merritt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
bankruptcy court’s order on final fee applications. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 158(d). “We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently

without deference to the district court’s determinations.” Leichty v. Neary (In re

Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

      Contrary to his contention, Merritt’s filing of two interlocutory appeals

related to the bankruptcy court’s orders disallowing his proof of claim and denying

his motion to dismiss did not deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to

approve the final fee applications because Merritt’s pending appeals divested the

bankruptcy court of jurisdiction only over matters directly involved in those

appeals. See In re Castaic Partners II, LLC, 823 F.3d 966, 969 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2016)

(“[T]he filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction

over matters or issues not appealed.”); Sherman v. SEC (In re Sherman), 491 F.3d

948, 967 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If a party wants to stay all of the proceedings in

bankruptcy court while an appeal is pending, it must file a motion for a stay.”).

      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.

                                           2                                     21-55810