ERIK BENHAM V. DAVID HAGEN, No. 16-56539 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: ERIK BENHAM, No. 16-56539 Debtor, ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08472-VBF ERIK BENHAM, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. DAVID R. HAGEN, Esquire, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2018** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Erik Benham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing * 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). for lack of standing Benham’s appeal from a bankruptcy court order approving the Trustee’s Final Report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for clear error the factual finding of whether an appellant is a person aggrieved. Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed for lack of standing Benham’s appeal because Benham was not a “person aggrieved” by the order approving the Trustee’s Final Report. This is because Benham failed to show any reasonable likelihood that the claims he would have the trustee bring would yield any pecuniary benefit for himself. See Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441, 442-43 (9th Cir. 1983) (a debtor carries the burden to “demonstrate that [he] was directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order of the bankruptcy court,” and “a hopelessly insolvent debtor does not have standing to appeal orders affecting the size of the estate”). Benham’s motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 22) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 22. AFFIRMED.1 1 All pending motions are denied as moot. 2 16-56539

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.