NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORTHBAY WELLNESS GROUP, INC., No. 13-17381
a corporation,
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-06255-JSW
Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL KENNETH BEYRIES,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 14, 2015
San Francisco California
Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Northbay Wellness Group brought an adversary proceeding against Michael
Beyries in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding,
Northbay appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California. The district court affirmed the dismissal, and Northbay appeals the
district court’s decision. We review the district court’s decision in an appeal from
the bankruptcy court de novo. Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re The Mortgage
Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2014). In doing so, we apply the same
standard of review to the bankruptcy court’s decision as did the district court. Id.
We review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Id.
We review the bankruptcy court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Johnson v. Neilson (In re Slatkin), 525 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2008).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence
through which Northbay intended to show that Beyries had “a pattern of ongoing
practice of fraud upon the courts and attorney misconduct.” Such evidence of
Beyries’s general dishonesty was not clearly relevant to Northbay’s allegations of
Beyries’s specific wrongdoing against Northbay, and it was excludable as
improper character evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 404(a)(1).
To the extent Northbay argues that the bankruptcy court erred by failing to
grant a warrant request for a witness who failed to appear, refusing to dismiss
Beyries’s bankruptcy petition, and contradicting the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we
deem those arguments waived because Northbay mentions them only in passing
2
and has not supported them with citations to the record or to case authority. See
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because we reverse the bankruptcy court’s application of the doctrine of
unclean hands for the separate reasons in our concurrently filed opinion, we need
not reach Northbay’s argument that the bankruptcy court erred in declining to
apply issue preclusion to Beyries’s unclean hands defense.
The judgment of the bankruptcy court is REVERSED IN PART as to its
application of the doctrine of unclean hands, and AFFIRMED IN PART on all
other issues. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.
3