MEMORANDUM **
Mohammad Khan appeals pro se from the district courts judgment affirming the bankruptcy courts order granting U.S. Bank retroactive relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Mac Donald v. Mac Donald (In re Mac Donald), 755 F.2d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay because it properly weighed the Fjelsted factors and concluded that eleven of the twelve factors weighed in favor of granting relief. See Fjelsted v. Lien (In re Fjelsted), 293 B.R. 12, 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth factors to consider in deciding whether to annul an automatic bankruptcy stay). We reject as unsupported by the record Khans contentions that U.S. Bank lied to the bankruptcy court about its knowledge of Khans bankruptcy proceedings or that Khan was prevented from presenting information to the bankruptcy or district courts.
We do not consider Khans argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the bankruptcy courts order violated the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Khans request to supplement the opening brief, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.