STEPHEN LAW V. EZRA BRUTZKUS GUBNER LLP, No. 16-60041 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: STEPHEN LAW, No. 16-60041 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 15-1248 STEPHEN LAW, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. EZRA BRUTZKUS GUBNER LLP, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Stephen Law appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his appeal as moot. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm. In his opening brief, Law fails to address the basis for the BAP’s order dismissing his appeal. As a result, he has waived any challenges to the 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 will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”). The BAP properly dismissed Law’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order imposing conditions on the release of funds because the appeal was rendered moot by Law’s later receipt of the funds at issue. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An appeal is moot if no present controversy exists as to which an appellate court can grant effective relief.”). The BAP properly declined to address issues not addressed in the bankruptcy court’s order that is the subject of this appeal. We also decline the parties’ requests to address issues beyond the scope of this appeal. AFFIRMED. 2 16-60041

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.