In Re: Artem Koshkalda v. E. Schoenmann

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 24, 2024
• Docket: 23-60031
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ARTEM KOSHKALDA, No. 23-60031

Debtor. BAP No. 23-1022 ______________________________

ARTEM KOSHKALDA, MEMORANDUM*

Appellant,

v.

E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Corbit, Brand, and Gan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2024**

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtor Artem Koshkalda appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

* 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). Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order

denying him leave to file pleadings under a vexatious litigant order. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s decision and

apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s

ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th

Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koshkalda’s

application for leave to file an adversary proceeding because the proposed filing

was within the scope of the vexatious litigant order. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089,

1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review); West v. Procunier, 452

F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing

of complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to effectuate

compliance with its earlier order”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-60031