Dam v. Waldron

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUN DAM, No. 25-2924 D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:24-cv-00334-SAB v.

MEMORANDUM*

MARK D. WALDRON, Chapter 7 Trustee; POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC; GIGA WATT BANKRUPTCY ESTATE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 19, 2026**

Before: CLIFTON, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

In this appeal, pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Jun Dam appeals the district court’s

order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss Dam’s appeal of the

bankruptcy court’s approval of Potomac Law Group, PLLC’s final fee application.

*

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).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Dam’s opening brief states that “[t]he contingency fee award challenged in

this appeal is wholly derivative of issues currently pending in Case No. 25-2459.”

His opening brief then makes one argument—that success in his appeal in case

number 25-2459 would require reversal here. Our concurrently filed memorandum

disposition in case number 25-2459 directs the district court to dismiss Dam’s

claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dam’s sole

argument for reversal in the present appeal therefore fails.

Dam has waived all other issues by failing to address them in his opening

brief. See SNJ Ltd. v. Comm’r, 28 F.4th 936, 944 n.7 (9th Cir. 2022).

All pending motions in this appeal are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2924