In Re Doug Mckinney; Nayantara Mckinney, Debtor.gigi Doyle Baldwin, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Doug Mckinney; Nayantara Mckinney, Defendants-appellants, 83 F.3d 427 (9th Cir. 1996)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 83 F.3d 427 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted April 10, 1996. *Decided April 12, 1996

Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Bankruptcy debtor Doug McKinney appeals pro se a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming a judgment by the bankruptcy court in favor of Gigi Doyle Baldwin, after a bench trial, in McKinney's action seeking to establish the non-dischargeability of a debt. The debt arose out McKinney's contract to do a remodeling job on Baldwin's home. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We have reviewed the record and affirm for the reasons set forth in the BAP's December 1, 1994 opinion.1 

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, the request for oral argument is denied

 **

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

 1

We reject McKinney's contention that the BAP improperly decided his case without allowing him the opportunity for oral argument. See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8012; Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1992) (" [I]t is well settled that oral argument is not necessary to satisfy due process.")

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.