Fogh v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Ninth Circuit

Fogh v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court

46 F. App'x 500

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketNo. 01-36068; D.C. No. CV-00-01991-JCC

StatusPublished

This text of 46 F. App'x 500 (Fogh v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court) 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

Fogh v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 46 F. App'x 500 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Linda L. Fogh, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying her motions to vacate the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her amended complaint, and denying reconsideration. [501]*501We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Mitchell v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell PC (In re Stein), 197 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1999); Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1126-27 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Because the district court’s decisions did not rest upon an erroneous view of the law, we find no error. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d at 424.

We deny the request for judicial notice contained in Fogh’s August 6, 2002 supplemental statement.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publi[501]*501cation 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

**

Linda L. Fogh, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying her motions to vacate the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her amended complaint, and denying reconsideration. [501]*501We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Mitchell v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell PC (In re Stein), 197 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1999); Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1126-27 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Because the district court’s decisions did not rest upon an erroneous view of the law, we find no error. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d at 424.

We deny the request for judicial notice contained in Fogh’s August 6, 2002 supplemental statement.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publi[501]*501cation and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

In Re: Alexander v. Stein, Debtor. John Mitchell, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Alexander Stein v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Eric H. Vetterlein Burt & Gordon Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Robert G. Burt Andrea L. Bushnell Burt & Vetterlein Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation, and Mark A. Gordon, in Re: Alexander v. Stein, Debtor. John Mitchell, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Alexander Stein v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Burt & Gordon Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Robert G. Burt Burt & Vetterlein Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation, and Eric H. Vetterlein Mark A. Gordon Andrea L. Bushnell

197 F.3d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 F. App'x 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogh-v-us-bankruptcy-court-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack