Court Opinion

ID: 9373945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:10:41.328054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.849309
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                  JUL 7 2022
                                                                             SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK
                          NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                  U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL
                                                                               OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

           UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
                     OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 In re:                                              BAP No. CC-21-1235-GFS
 AHMAD JAMALEDDIN ALJINDI,
            Debtor.                                  Bk. No. 6:17-bk-11311-MH

 AHMAD JAMALEDDIN ALJINDI,
            Appellant.                               MEMORANDUM*

               Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
                    for the Central District of California
                Mark D. Houle, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding

Before: GAN, FARIS, and SPRAKER, Bankruptcy Judges.

                                 INTRODUCTION

       Ahmad Jamaleddin Aljindi purports to appeal the bankruptcy court’s

orders denying his motion to reopen his chapter 7 1 case and denying his

motion to expunge and seal the records of his case. However, Mr. Aljindi

does not attach those orders to his notice of appeal, and the bankruptcy

       *
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for
whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential
value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1.
       1 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the

Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532, and all “Rule” references are to the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
court docket does not evidence any such orders or motions. The only order

attached to Mr. Aljindi’s notice of appeal—and the only one entered on the

bankruptcy court docket—is the order denying Mr. Aldjindi’s request to

waive the fee for reopening his case. Consequently, that is the only order at

issue in this appeal.

      In his Opening Brief, Mr. Aljindi expressly states that he is not

appealing the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny the fee waiver, and he

offers no argument relevant to the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny his

request. We AFFIRM.

                                        FACTS2

      Mr. Aljindi filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition in February 2017. He

received his discharge, and the case was closed, in June 2017. Three years

later, Mr. Aljindi filed an application to waive the filing fee to reopen his

case, using Official Form 103B. He contends that he also filed a motion to

reopen the case and a motion to expunge and seal the records of his case,

but those motions do not appear on the bankruptcy court’s docket.

      In October 2021, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying

Mr. Aljindi’s request to waive the fee to reopen. Mr. Aljindi timely

appealed.

      2
         Mr. Aljindi did not provide excerpts of the record. We exercise our discretion to
take judicial notice of documents electronically filed in the bankruptcy case. See Atwood
v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood), 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Cir. BAP 2003).
                                            2
                               JURISDICTION

      The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and

157(b)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158.

                                     ISSUE

      Did the bankruptcy court abuse its discretion by denying

Mr. Aljindi’s motion to waive the fee to reopen his case?

                          STANDARD OF REVIEW

      We review the bankruptcy court’s order denying a waiver of filing

fees for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Mann (In re Bishop), BAP Nos. AZ-06-

1362-DNK; AZ-06-1445-DNK; AZ-07-1023-DNK, 2007 WL 7532285, at *3

(9th Cir. BAP Nov. 5, 2007). A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it

applies an incorrect legal standard or its factual findings are illogical,

implausible, or without support in the record. TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v.

Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011).

                                 DISCUSSION

      In appropriate circumstances, bankruptcy courts have authority to

waive fees in bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f). The court may waive a

chapter 7 debtor’s filing fee “if the court determines that such individual

has income less than 150 percent of the income official poverty line . . . and

is unable to pay that fee in installments.” Id. If the bankruptcy court waives

a chapter 7 debtor’s filing fee, it may also waive other bankruptcy fees for

such debtor, including the fee to reopen the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(2).

                                        3
      Mr. Aljindi provides no argument in his opening brief why the court

erred by denying his application for a fee waiver and has thus waived the

issue. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Moreover,

Mr. Aljindi states in his Opening Brief: “As of the date and time of this

informal brief, the Debtor/Appellant is NOT appealing the fee waiver. The

Debtor/Appellant is appealing the Denial/Rejection of the Motion to

Reopen and the Motion to Expunge.”

      There is no evidence that the bankruptcy court ruled on a motion to

reopen or a motion to expunge. 3 Neither the motions nor orders disposing

of them appear on the bankruptcy court docket. Accordingly, we lack

jurisdiction to consider the appeals which Mr. Aljindi seeks to pursue.

                                  CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the bankruptcy court’s denial of

Mr. Aljindi’s motion to waive the fee to reopen his case.

      3
       Pursuant to Rules 9021 and 5003, an order is not effective unless entered on the
bankruptcy court’s docket.
                                           4