In Re: Lake Mathews Mineral Props. v. Elissa Miller

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 21-55810
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: LAKE MATHEWS No. 21-55810 MINERAL PROPERTIES, LTD., D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07808-GW Debtor.

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM*

PAUL MERRITT,

Appellant,

v.

ELISSA D. MILLER, Trustee,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Paul Merritt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the

* 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). bankruptcy court’s order on final fee applications. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 158(d). “We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently

without deference to the district court’s determinations.” Leichty v. Neary (In re

Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Contrary to his contention, Merritt’s filing of two interlocutory appeals

related to the bankruptcy court’s orders disallowing his proof of claim and denying

his motion to dismiss did not deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to

approve the final fee applications because Merritt’s pending appeals divested the

bankruptcy court of jurisdiction only over matters directly involved in those

appeals. See In re Castaic Partners II, LLC, 823 F.3d 966, 969 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2016)

(“[T]he filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction

over matters or issues not appealed.”); Sherman v. SEC (In re Sherman), 491 F.3d

948, 967 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If a party wants to stay all of the proceedings in

bankruptcy court while an appeal is pending, it must file a motion for a stay.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

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

AFFIRMED.

2 21-55810