In re: YAN SUI v. Richard A. Marshack

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: YAN SUI,
Debtor.
YAN SUI; PEI-YU YANG,
Appellants,
v.
RICHARD A. MARSHACK,
Appellee.
No. 17-60052
BAP Nos. 16-1252
16-1284
16-1310
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Kurtz, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting
* 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
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-60052
sanctions against appellants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We
review de novo decisions of the BAP and apply the same standard of review that
the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v.
Penrod (In re Penrod), 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing non-punitive
sanctions against appellants after finding them in civil contempt because the record
shows that appellants violated the bankruptcy court’s June 4, 2015 order, which
appellants unsuccessfully appealed to this court. See Kismet Acquisition, LLC v.
Diaz–Barba (In re Icenhower), 755 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting
forth standard of review and stating that a bankruptcy court may hold a party in
civil contempt if the party “violated a specific and definite order of the court”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because appellants failed to provide the necessary transcripts, we are unable
to assess the validity of appellants’ challenges to the bankruptcy court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law related to its order imposing sanctions under its
inherent authority. To the extent the record permits review, the bankruptcy court
did not abuse its discretion. See Price v. Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen), 564 F.3d 1052,
1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (inherent authority of bankruptcy court allows court to impose
sanctions and provide compensation for improper litigation tactics); see also Fed.
R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-60052
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the
appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that
finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th
Cir. 1991) (failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) precludes meaningful
review).
We reject as without merit appellants’ contentions that the bankruptcy court
violated appellants’ rights to due process and free speech.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or 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).
Appellants’ request to incorporate briefing submitted in other appeals, set
forth in the opening brief, is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 28-1(b).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --