INGLEWOOD WOMAN'S CLUB, INC. V., No. 17-60053 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: INGLEWOOD WOMAN’S CLUB, INC., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-60053 BAP No. 16-1084 Debtor. ______________________________ MEMORANDUM* MARLENE FEARING, Appellant. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Jury, Lafferty, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Marlene Fearing appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the Inglewood Woman’s Club, Inc.’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and * 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). apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The bankruptcy court properly denied Fearing’s motion to compel the bankruptcy court to initiate a criminal investigation because the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334(b); Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that bankruptcy jurisdiction is limited to civil proceedings). We reject as without merit Fearing’s contentions that the BAP misconstrued the scope of appeal and that the bankruptcy court and BAP violated due process. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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 17-60053

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.