NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PAUL DEN BESTE; MELODY No. 13-17494
DEN BESTE,
D.C. No. 4:12-cv-06189-SBA
Debtors.
MEMORANDUM*
PAUL DEN BESTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALEC HARRINGTON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Paul Den Beste appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
*
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).
bankruptcy court’s order granting appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees as a
sanction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review
de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply
the same standard of review applied by the district court. In re AFI Holding, Inc.,
525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Contrary to Den Beste’s assertion, a bankruptcy court possesses the
authority to sanction a party for bad faith or willful misconduct. See Price v.
Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen), 564 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (inherent power of
bankruptcy court allows court to impose sanctions and provide compensation for
improper litigation tactics).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Den Beste
because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s finding that Den Beste filed the
adversary proceeding in bad faith and for the sole purpose of harassing appellee.
See id. (bankruptcy court’s sanction decision reviewed for abuse of discretion);
Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003)
(bankruptcy court’s factual finding reviewed for clear error).
To the extent that Den Beste challenges the bankruptcy court’s order
granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court’s order
annulling the automatic stay rendered the adversary proceeding moot. See Vegas
Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An appeal is
2 13-17494
moot if no present controversy exists as to which an appellate court can grant
effective relief.”).
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.
3 13-17494