Peter Bronson v. Thomas Thompson , 694 F. App'x 523 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L. No. 16-60099
BRONSON,
BAP No. 16-1050
Debtors,
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L.
BRONSON,
Appellants,
v.
THOMAS M. THOMPSON,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Faris, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson appeal pro se from a judgment of
*
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).
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
dismissing their state law claims and closing an adversary proceeding. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and
apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s
ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the
Bronsons’ state law claim and closing the adversary proceeding because the
underlying bankruptcy proceeding is complete. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs.,
Inc. (In re Carraher), 971 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is
within the bankruptcy court’s discretion subject to considerations of judicial
economy, fairness, convenience, and comity).
We do not consider the Bronsons’ contentions regarding the merits of the
underlying adversary proceeding, which are not within the scope of this appeal.
The appellee’s request for sanctions and attorney’s fees, set forth in the
answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-60099