LARSON v. KOTE TRUSTEE OF GERALD AND BARBARA LARSON REV TRUST (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 19-55313

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Larson's appeal for lack of standing was affirmed because Larson failed to establish either an injury in fact or that he was personally aggrieved by the bankruptcy court's order approving the chapter 7 trustee's compromise.

Daniel Keith Larson appealed pro se from a district court order that dismissed his appeal of a bankruptcy court decision approving a chapter 7 trustee's motion to settle a claim. The appellate court reviewed whether Larson had standing to bring the appeal, applying a de novo standard of review. The court found that Larson failed to demonstrate either an injury in fact or that he was personally aggrieved by the bankruptcy court's order, which is necessary to establish standing under applicable law.

Because Larson could not show a concrete and particularized injury resulting from the trustee's approved compromise, the court determined the district court properly dismissed his appeal. The appellate court also declined to consider arguments that were not specifically raised in Larson's opening brief on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Larson had standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's order
Whether Larson suffered an injury in fact or was personally aggrieved by the trustee's approved compromise
Standards for establishing standing in bankruptcy appeals

Procedural posture

Larson appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing his appeal of a bankruptcy court's approval of a chapter 7 trustee's motion to approve a compromise.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Keith Larson appeals pro se from the district courts order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy courts order granting the chapter 7 trustees motion to approve compromise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo a district courts decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and dismissal for lack of standing. Harkey v. Grobstein (In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc.), 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Larsons appeal for lack of standing because Larson failed to establish that he suffered an injury in fact or that he was personally aggrieved by the bankruptcy courts order granting the chapter 7 trustees motion to approve a compromise. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (“To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Point Ctr. Fin., 890 F.3d at 1191-92 (discussing required showing for prudential standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.