Daniel Larson v. Peter Kote ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL KEITH LARSON, No. 19-55313
Appellant, D.C. No. 8:18-cv-01171-MWF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PETER KOTE, Trustee of The Gerald R.
and Barbara A. Larson Rev. Trust;
RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7
Trustee,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Keith Larson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting the chapter 7 trustee’s
motion to approve compromise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)
*
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).
and 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from the
bankruptcy court and dismissal for lack of standing. Harkey v. Grobstein (In re
Point Ctr. Fin., Inc.), 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Larson’s appeal for lack of standing
because Larson failed to establish that he suffered an injury in fact or that he was
personally aggrieved by the bankruptcy court’s order granting the chapter 7
trustee’s motion to approve a compromise. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
1540, 1548 (2016) (“To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she
suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and
particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Point Ctr. Fin., 890 F.3d at 1191-92
(discussing required showing for prudential standing to appeal a bankruptcy court
order).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55313