Robert Konop, et al v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., et al, No. 08-16128 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT C. KONOP, Appellant, No. 08-16128 D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00223-DAEBMK and OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, MEMORANDUM * Creditor, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Reorganiized Debtor - Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case No. 03-00817, Appellee, and JOSHUA GOTBAUM and OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE, Trustees. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court s order denying Konop s motion to amend or clarify his proof of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Konop s proof of claim did not include a request for equitable relief because the claim summary focused on monetary damages and included only a single, past-tense reference to equitable relief. See Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop s motion to have oral argument held in Pasadena, California, is denied. 2 08-16128 Konop s motion to amend the proof of claim as untimely. See Roberts Farms Inc. v. Bultman (In re Roberts Farms), 980 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992). Konop s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Konop s request for judicial notice is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 08-16128

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.