In Re: Michael R. Fried, Debtor, Michael R. Fried v. August Puglia, Dba August Insurance Services
This text of 133 F.3d 926 (In Re: Michael R. Fried, Debtor, Michael R. Fried v. August Puglia, Dba August Insurance Services) 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.
Opinion
133 F.3d 926
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
In re: Michael R. FRIED, Debtor,
Michael R. FRIED, Appellant,
v.
August PUGLIA, dba August Insurance Services, Appellee.
Nos. 97-16225, NC-97-01099-RYOME.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 1997.**
Decided Dec. 19, 1997.
Before: SNEED, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Michael R. Fried appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") denial of his motion to reconsider the BAP's previous order dismissing his appeal from a bankruptcy court's order as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c). We review for abuse of discretion, see National Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam), and we affirm the BAP's denial of Fried's motion to reconsider its previous order, see Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).1
AFFIRMED.2
Because we unanimously find this case suitable for decision without oral argument, we deny Fried's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3
Because we conclude that the BAP properly denied Fried's motion to reconsider, we do not address his remaining contentions challenging the merits of the underlying bankruptcy court order
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
133 F.3d 926, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 40124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-r-fried-debtor-michael-r-fried-v-aug-ca9-1997.