In the Matter of: FORT DEFIANCE HOUSING CORPORATION v. Brenda Moody Whinery, as Chapter 11 Trustee of Fort Defiance Housing Corporation, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: FORT DEFIANCE
HOUSING CORPORATION,
Debtor,
BRENDA TODD; WILLIAM AUBREY,
Defendants-Appellants,
v.
BRENDA MOODY WHINERY, as
Chapter 11 Trustee of Fort Defiance
Housing Corporation, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nos. 11-16223, 11-16224
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01918-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
FILED
NOV 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-16223 2
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, William Aubrey and Brenda Todd appeal pro
se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of their
motion for dismissal of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in the
adversary proceeding brought against them. 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 abuse its discretion by concluding that
appellants failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly
discovered evidence, misconduct, fraud or any other basis for relief from judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), (d)(3); Hammer v. Drago (In re Hammer), 940 F.2d 524,
525 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review).
Appellants’ contentions that the bankruptcy court was not impartial are
unpersuasive because appellants do not point to any evidence in the record of
judicial bias. See Commercial Paper Holders v. Hine (Matter of Beverly Hills
Bancorp), 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Unfavorable rulings alone are
legally insufficient to require recusal.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

-- 2 of 3 --

11-16223 3
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --