FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 29 2011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 the Matter of: CHRISTOPHER B. No. 10-35705
PHILLIPS, pro se,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01399-TSZ
Debtor.
MEMORANDUM *
CHRISTOPHER B. PHILLIPS, pro se,
Appellant,
v.
NANCY L. JAMES; STANDARD
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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).
Christopher B. Phillips, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders approving the trustee’s
settlement agreement with Standard Insurance Company (“Standard”) and denying
Phillips’s claim of exemption in disability insurance income. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy
court’s approval of a settlement agreement. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.),
784 F.2d 1377, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the
settlement agreement. See In re A & C Props., 784 F.2d at 1380-81 (approval of a
compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual
foundation establishing that the compromise was fair, reasonable, and adequate).
Even assuming that the trustee could fairly be said to have rejected assumption of
Phillips’s executory contract with Standard, Phillips’s contention that the trustee
therefore had no legal authority to enter into the settlement agreement with
Standard is unpersuasive. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (estate generally includes all
of debtor’s legal interests as of commencement of bankruptcy case); see also First
Ave. West Bldg., LLC v. James (In re Onecast Media, Inc.), 439 F.3d 558, 563 (9th
Cir. 2006) (trustee’s rejection of executory contract merely constitutes breach of
2 10-35705
contract and does not divest estate of a breaching party’s normal rights under terms
of contract and applicable state law).
We do not consider Phillips’s appeal of the order denying his claimed
exemption because Phillips, who has a law degree, failed to argue the issue in his
opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (refusing to consider matters on appeal that were not specifically and
distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief).
Phillips’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-35705