In re: WILLIAM P. CHENG; JANET CHENG v. Arthur Osterback;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WILLIAM P. CHENG; JANET
CHENG,
Debtors.
______________________________
WILLIAM P. CHENG; JANET CHENG,
Appellants,
v.
ARTHUR OSTERBACK; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 16-15759
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01617-TLN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtors William P. Cheng and Janet Cheng appeal pro se from the
* 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
OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15759
district court’s order dismissing the Chengs’ bankruptcy appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We affirm.
In their opening brief, the Chengs fail to address how the district court erred
by dismissing their appeal for failure to comply with the court’s order and as moot.
As a result, the Chengs have waived their challenge to the district 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 will not manufacture arguments for an
appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).
Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the Chengs’
bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider their arguments challenging the bankruptcy
court’s orders.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --