The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-35319•In re: DATA SYSTEMS, INC. v. Amy E. Mitchell
17-35319Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 23, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
Debtor.
______________________________
WILLIAM F. HOLDNER,
Appellant,
v.
AMY E. MITCHELL,
Appellee.
No. 17-35319
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02346-HZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018*
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming
the bankruptcy court’s order confirming debtor Data Systems, Inc.’s (“DSI”)
* 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
JAN 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 17-35319
chapter 11 plan of reorganization. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court,
and review a bankruptcy court’s decision independently, without deference to the
district court's decision. In re JTS Corp., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010).
We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its
findings of fact. Id. We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by confirming DSI’s plan
of reorganization because Holdner failed to establish any basis to deny
confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1129. See Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall),
721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).
To the extent Holdner contends that the bankruptcy court erred by approving
the second amended disclosure statement, we reject such contention as without
merit.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.