Chad Barnes v. Kristin Henry ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAD BARRY BARNES, No. 21-16575
Appellant, D.C. No.
1:20-cv-00327-JAO-RT
v.
KRISTIN KIMO HENRY; NIMA MEMORANDUM*
GHAZVINI, Successor Chapter 13 Standing
Trustee,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2022**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Chad Barnes appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy
court’s order granting the Standing Trustee’s request to be discharged in the
Chapter 13 proceedings of Kristin Kimo Henry. We review de novo the district
*
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).
court’s decision on an appeal from a bankruptcy court. See Elliott v. Pac. W. Bank
(In re Elliott), 969 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the bankruptcy
court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See
Brace v. Speier (In re Brace), 979 F.3d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 2020). As the parties
are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.
Barnes argues that the bankruptcy court erred because it granted the
Trustee’s request to be discharged before Barnes had a reasonable opportunity to
respond. However, Barnes fails to show that the Local Bankruptcy Rules or the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure prevented the bankruptcy court from
issuing the order discharging the Trustee.1 Barnes primarily relies on Local
Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(c)(2), which provides that for motions that must be set for
hearing, “[a]ll responses to the motion must be filed and served on the moving
party not less than 14 days before the hearing date.” But nothing in this rule
prevents a bankruptcy court from taking action on a motion before receiving
responses from opposing parties. Moreover, Local Bankruptcy Rule 9021-1(b)
provides that “[n]o provision for an objection period or anything else in these rules
limits the court’s authority to enter a judgment or order at any time.”
1
The Local Bankruptcy Rules referenced are for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Hawaii.
2
Barnes also argues that his due process and equal protection rights were
violated, but he forfeited these issues by failing to raise them in the district court.
See True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 896 F.3d 923, 930 (9th Cir.
2018). Further, even if not forfeited, Barnes’ due process argument is
unpersuasive because he had the opportunity to raise his arguments when he filed
his “Objection to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee’s Final Report and Account and
Request for a Stay,” which the bankruptcy court overruled. See Miranda v. City of
Casa Grande, 15 F.4th 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2021). Barnes’ contention that his
equal protection rights as a seaman were violated is also unavailing. See Sampson
v. County of Los Angeles, 974 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2020).
We decline Barnes’ request that we “review issues in Barnes’ other related
appeals under the ‘collateral order doctrine.’”
AFFIRMED.
3