Shmuel Erde v. John Taylor

Ninth Circuit

Shmuel Erde v. John Taylor

653 Fed. Appx. 508, 653 F. App'x 508, 2016 WL 3448418, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11646

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket14-55536

StatusUnpublished

This text of 653 Fed. Appx. 508 (Shmuel Erde v. John Taylor) 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

Shmuel Erde v. John Taylor, 653 Fed. Appx. 508, 653 F. App'x 508, 2016 WL 3448418, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11646 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his adversary action alleging fraud, fraud upon the court, violation of court order, and ■breach of professional and ethical duties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently . the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determination. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Erde has failed to address in his opening brief any of the claims alleged in his complaint or the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) *509 (issues not 'supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

Wé do not consider Erde’s challenges to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction in a separate action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his adversary action alleging fraud, fraud upon the court, violation of court order, and ■breach of professional and ethical duties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently . the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determination. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Erde has failed to address in his opening brief any of the claims alleged in his complaint or the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) *509 (issues not 'supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

Wé do not consider Erde’s challenges to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction in a separate action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 Fed. Appx. 508, 653 F. App'x 508, 2016 WL 3448418, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shmuel-erde-v-john-taylor-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack