FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: STEPHEN LAW, No. 09-60023
Debtor, BAP No. CC-08-1240-MkHMo
STEPHEN LAW, MEMORANDUM *
Appellant,
v.
ALFRED H. SIEGEL, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Markell, Hollowell, and Montali, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Stephen Law appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his adversary complaint
against the trustee in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). N. Slope Borough v. Rogstad (In re
Rogstad), 126 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
Contrary to Law’s contention, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the
removed state-law claims against the trustee because they concerned the
administration of the bankruptcy estate. See Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris
Pine Mills), 44 F.3d 1431, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiffs’ postpetition state-law
claims against the bankruptcy trustee “for conduct inextricably intertwined with the
trustee’s sale of property belonging to the bankruptcy estate involved a core
proceeding subject to federal jurisdiction”).
The BAP properly determined that Law’s complaint failed to state a claim
against the trustee because the allegations against the trustee concerned his court-
authorized management of the bankruptcy estate, for which he enjoyed immunity.
See Bennett v. Williams, 892 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Bankruptcy trustees
are entitled to broad immunity from suit when acting within the scope of their
authority and pursuant to court order.”).
2 09-60023
Law’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-60023