Peter Bronson v. Thomas Thompson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2017
• Docket: 16-60099
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L. No. 16-60099 BRONSON, BAP No. 16-1050 Debtors, ______________________________ MEMORANDUM* PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L. BRONSON,

Appellants,

v.

THOMAS M. THOMPSON,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Jury, Faris, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson appeal pro se from a judgment of

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

dismissing their state law claims and closing an adversary proceeding. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, 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 by dismissing the

Bronsons’ state law claim and closing the adversary proceeding because the

underlying bankruptcy proceeding is complete. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs.,

Inc. (In re Carraher), 971 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of

review and explaining that whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is

within the bankruptcy court’s discretion subject to considerations of judicial

economy, fairness, convenience, and comity).

We do not consider the Bronsons’ contentions regarding the merits of the

underlying adversary proceeding, which are not within the scope of this appeal.

The appellee’s request for sanctions and attorney’s fees, set forth in the

answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-60099