In re: PELI POPOVICH HUNT v. Daniel A. Capen, M.d.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PELI POPOVICH HUNT,
Debtor.
______________________________
PELI POPOVICH HUNT,
Appellant,
v.
DANIEL A. CAPEN, M.D.; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 14-55845
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06600-MMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order converting Hunt’s chapter 11
* 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).
FILED
JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-55845
bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 7 proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.
In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in
converting Hunt’s bankruptcy case. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to
the bankruptcy court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.
1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are
deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We
review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening
brief.”).
We reject as meritless Hunt’s contentions that the district court and
bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and demonstrated bias.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --