NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL No. 20-55684
PROPERTIES, LTD.,
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09063-DOC
Debtor,
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
PAUL MERRITT,
Appellant,
v.
LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL
PROPERTIES, LTD.; ELISSA D. MILLER,
Trustee,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, 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).
Paul Merritt appeals pro se from a district court order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a bankruptcy case, and from the
district court order denying reconsideration. The parties are familiar with the facts,
so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and
we affirm.
The district court denied Merritt’s motion for reconsideration on the ground
that Merritt had not satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
60(b) or 59(e), and because the district court had fully considered the fraud
assertions. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (9th Cir. 1993), and find none.
Merritt simply repeats the assertions as to bankruptcy fraud that the district court
had considered and found unsupported by the record.
Merritt also challenges the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to
dismiss the bankruptcy case for fraud, which the district court summarily affirmed.
The court reviews de novo a district court decision on appeal from a bankruptcy
court, applying the same standard of review applied by the district court. In re JTS
Corp., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We therefore review the bankruptcy
court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Id. The
bankruptcy court considered Merritt’s assertions of bankruptcy fraud. The
bankruptcy court concluded, among other things, that Merritt was estopped from
2
arguing that the filing of the bankruptcy petition was unauthorized, and that
Merritt’s motion had been brought for an improper purpose. Merritt does not
address the estoppel holding; rather, he challenges factual findings, asserting that
the record established fraud. Merritt’s briefing is largely comprised of allegations
unmoored from the record, and he has not shown clear error.
AFFIRMED.
3