NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 3 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER SZANTO, No. 21-35151
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos.
3:18-cv-00951-SI
v. 3:18-cv-00952-SI
EVYE SZANTO, et al.,
MEMORANDUM *
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 3, 2024**
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Peter Szanto appeals pro se from the District Court’s order affirming the
Bankruptcy Court’s order in an Adversary Proceeding, which dismissed Szanto’s
claims against various members of his family (“the Relatives”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the District Court’s decision on appeal
*
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).
from the Bankruptcy Court without deference to the District Court. In re Thorpe
Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). In particular, we review de novo
the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of summary judgment. In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219,
1221-1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
I
The Bankruptcy Court correctly granted partial summary judgment in favor
of the Relatives by dismissing all of Szanto’s claims against them in the Adversary
Proceeding. Szanto’s claims against the Relatives for conversion and emotional
distress are time-barred. To the extent that these claims have any basis in reality,
Szanto knew of them by no later than June 5, 2009, when he brought similar claims
against many of the same defendants in San Mateo County Superior Court. The
Oregon statute of limitations requires that a conversion claim must be commenced
within six years after the claim for relief accrues. Or. Rev. Stat. (ORS) 73.0118(7).
California’s statute of limitations is shorter, providing only three years. Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code (CCP) 338(c)(1). Thus, regardless of which state law is applied, Szanto
was well beyond the statute of limitations when he commenced this Adversary
Proceeding on September 21, 2016. Szanto’s emotional distress claim is similarly
barred, since under both Oregon and California law the statute of limitations is two
years. See CCP 335.1; ORS 12.110(1).
Szanto argues that his claims in the Adversary Proceeding should be treated
2
as compulsory counterclaims to the San Mateo County Superior Court case.
Assuming that this were true, however, counterclaims are not tolled indefinitely, but
only for the time allotted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a) to file a responsive pleading.
The Bankruptcy Court did not err in dismissing Szanto’s claims as time-barred.
II
Szanto argues that the Bankruptcy Court exhibited bias. Szanto is prone to
making this argument. See e.g., Szanto v. United States Tr. (In re Szanto), 703 F.
App’x 581, 582 (9th Cir. 2017) (“We reject as unsupported by the record Szanto's
contentions concerning bias of the bankruptcy judge or that the judge’s impartiality
might reasonably be questioned”).
It is unclear precisely how Szanto believes that this bias led to a reversible
error by the Bankruptcy Court. However, assuming that Szanto is requesting that
this Court reverse the Bankruptcy Court on the basis of general judicial misconduct,
see Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 1995), we again reject as
unsupported by the record Szanto’s contentions concerning bias on the part of the
bankruptcy judge.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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.
3