In re: SHANEL ANN STASZ v. Rosendo Gonzalez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SHANEL ANN STASZ,
Debtor,
SHANEL ANN STASZ,
Appellant,
v.
ROSENDO GONZALEZ,
Appellee.
No. 11-60073
BAP No. 11-1050
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hollowell, Kirscher, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Shanel Ann Stasz appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-60073 2
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
approving the trustee’s final report and applications for compensation (“Final
Report”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse
of discretion. 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 approving the Final
Report because the services for which compensation was sought were reasonably
likely to benefit Stasz’s bankruptcy estate and/or necessary to the administration of
the case. See id. at 857, 860 (setting forth factors relevant to determination of a
reasonable fee allowance, and noting that “[w]e will not disturb a bankruptcy
court’s award of attorneys’ fees unless the bankruptcy court abused its discretion
or erroneously applied the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Stasz’s contentions concerning whether the bankruptcy court had
jurisdiction to approve the Final Report are unpersuasive for the reasons stated by
the BAP. Her contentions concerning the BAP’s bias are also unpersuasive and
unsupported by the record.
We do not consider arguments not properly raised before the bankruptcy
court. See O’Rourke v. Seaboard Surety Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, Inc.), 887 F.2d
955, 957 (9th Cir. 1989).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-60073 3
Stasz’s request for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --