WILLIAM HOLDNER V. AMY MITCHELL, No. 17-35319 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: DATA SYSTEMS, INC., No. 17-35319 Debtor. ______________________________ D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02346-HZ WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. AMY E. MITCHELL, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018* Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming debtor Data Systems, Inc.’s (“DSI”) * 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). chapter 11 plan of reorganization. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and review a bankruptcy court’s decision independently, without deference to the district court's decision. In re JTS Corp., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Id. We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by confirming DSI’s plan of reorganization because Holdner failed to establish any basis to deny confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1129. See Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall), 721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). To the extent Holdner contends that the bankruptcy court erred by approving the second amended disclosure statement, we reject such contention as without merit. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-35319

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.