Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (In Re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.) , 401 F. App'x 248 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
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: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, No. 09-15827
INC., Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00538-HG-KSC
Debtor.
ROBERT C. KONOP, MEMORANDUM *
Appellant,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., a Hawaii
Corporation,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop’s
request to have oral argument in Pasadena, California, is denied.
Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming
the bankruptcy court’s order granting a motion by Hawaiian Airlines Inc.,
(“Hawaiian”) to enforce the confirmation order and impose sanctions against
Konop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review decisions of
the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s
determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not err in granting Hawaiian’s motion to enforce
the confirmation order because Konop knowingly and intentionally brought his
claims in violation of the discharge injunction. See Renwick v. Bennett (In re
Bennett), 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (bankruptcy court may enforce a
discharge injunction through sanctions where the party knew the discharge
injunction applied and intended the actions that violated the injunction). On the
same basis, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions
against Konop. See id.; Price v. Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen), 564 F.3d 1052, 1058
(9th Cir. 2009) (the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion).
We decline to address contentions Konop raises for the first time on appeal,
including his contention that his wrongful termination and retaliation claims
2 09-15827
against Hawaiian do not require the filing of an administrative claim and are not
subject to discharge, and his contention that the bankruptcy court erred by
dismissing, in effect, his claims as to non-debtor third party defendants. See
Florida Partners Corp. v. Southeast Co. (In re Southeast Co.), 868 F.2d 335, 339-
40 (9th Cir. 1989) (declining to address issue not raised before bankruptcy court)
Konop’s remaining contentions lack merit.
Konop’s requests for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-15827