FILED
MAR 08 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JUNE E. WILLEMS, No. 10-15489
Debtor, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00413-RCC
JUNE E. WILLEMS, MEMORANDUM *
Appellant,
v.
RALPH E. SEEFELDT, Chapter 7
Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
June E. Willems appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming
the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment vacating its discharge of her bankruptcy
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo.
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d
933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
Contrary to Willems’s contentions, the bankruptcy court properly concluded
that it had jurisdiction to hear her bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)
(“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11”); D. Ariz.
Gen. Order 01-15 (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the court hereby refers to the
bankruptcy judges for this district all cases under title 11 and all proceedings under
title 11 . . . .”).
Willems’s contentions that she was denied due process by the bankruptcy
and district courts are not supported by the record. See SEC v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d
650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be
heard).
Willems’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Willems’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15489