NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN YAGMAN, No. 17-55682
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07343-VAP-
AFM
v.
DAVID R. KITTAY; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action against various parties
involved in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review do novo, Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d
*
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).
948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action against the
bankruptcy trustee and his counsel as barred by the Barton doctrine. See Beck v.
Fort James Corp. (In re Crown Vantage, Inc.), 421 F.3d 963, 970, 972 (9th
Cir. 2005) (Barton doctrine applies to “a bankruptcy trustee or other officer
appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer’s official capacity,”
even after the bankruptcy is closed).
Contrary to Yagman’s contention, the district court properly resolved the
existence of subject matter jurisdiction on defendants’ motion to dismiss under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Because we affirm the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we
do not consider the merits of Yagman’s claims.
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-55682