Carlton Roark v. Leslie Gladstone
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Todd W. Robinson (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- In Re: Roark (2020-12-31) — the district court's order on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: CARLTON ROARK, No. 21-55040 Debtor, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02117-TWR- ______________________________ WVG CARLTON ROARK, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, Trustee; et al., Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Carlton Roark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Roark’s motion for * 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). reconsideration of a settlement agreement. 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 we apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v. Tucson Ests., Inc. (In re Tucson Ests., Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roark’s motion for reconsideration of a settlement agreement because Roark failed to establish any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (providing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 applies to motions for relief from a judgment or order in a bankruptcy case); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A [motion for reconsideration] may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”).
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55040