Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates

Ninth Circuit

Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates

62 F. App'x 193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2003

DocketNo. 02-15018; BAP No. NC-01-01355-PKMa

StatusPublished

This text of 62 F. App'x 193 (Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates, 62 F. App'x 193 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

**

Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation (“Cohen”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Cohen’s “Motion ... For Further Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and Related Court Orders” and affirming the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions. Cohen does not challenge the factual findings made by the bankruptcy court.

We affirm the bankruptcy court’s denial of Cohen’s motion for the reasons stated by the BAP. We further hold that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Cohen pursuant to its inherent authority. We decline to consider Cohen’s other arguments relating to sanctions that are raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc., 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (declining, in an appeal from a BAP decision, to address arguments not raised below as waived).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation (“Cohen”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Cohen’s “Motion ... For Further Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and Related Court Orders” and affirming the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions. Cohen does not challenge the factual findings made by the bankruptcy court.

We affirm the bankruptcy court’s denial of Cohen’s motion for the reasons stated by the BAP. We further hold that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Cohen pursuant to its inherent authority. We decline to consider Cohen’s other arguments relating to sanctions that are raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc., 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (declining, in an appeal from a BAP decision, to address arguments not raised below as waived).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

In Re: Cybernetic Services, Inc., D/B/A Silent Radio, Inc., Debtor. Petitioning Creditors Byron Z. Moldo, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Cybernetic Services, Inc., Dba Silent Radio, Inc. ("Moldo") v. Matsco, Inc., in Re: Cybernetic Services, Inc., D/B/A Silent Radio, Inc., Debtor. Byron Z. Moldo, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Matsco, Inc., and Matsco Financial Corporation, Petitioning Creditors

252 F.3d 1039 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

West Covina Enterprises, Inc. v. Chalmers

322 P.2d 13 (California Supreme Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. App'x 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-steinbrecher-v-steinbrecher-associates-ca9-2003.