ROBERT HUNT V. PETER ANDERSON, No. 16-55646 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 5 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of: ROBERT W. HUNT, No. 16-55646 M.D., DBA Intercommunity Medical Group, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09970-RGK Debtor. ______________________________ MEMORANDUM* PELI POPOVICH HUNT, Appellant, v. PETER C. ANDERSON, United States Trustee; DAVID M. GOODRICH, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. * 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). Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court’s pre-filing order entered against a vexatious litigant. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. In her opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for filing the appeal in violation of the district court’s pre-filing order. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider her arguments challenging bankruptcy court orders. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-55646

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.