Case Information
*1 Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
*2
Olga Bordenyuk (“Bordenyuk”) appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ( the “BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’ s order approving the C hapter 7 trustee Richard Yanagi’s (the “Trustee”) compromise with the personal representative for the probate estate of Karen Stirling. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158, and we affirm.
We review a decision by the BAP de novo. In re Arden , 176 F.3d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. 1999). A bankruptcy court’s decision s to approve a compromise and to deny a motion to alter or amend the judgment are reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re A & C Properties , 784 F.2d 1377, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Clinton , 449 B.R. 79, 82 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011).
Bordenyuk waived her arguments that the bankruptcy court erred by approving a settlement that was not “fair and equitable,” the settlement order did not cont ain the proper findings to support the bankruptcy court’s decision, and the bankruptcy court “ignored the fact that the probate order is probably void” because it violated the stay. She presented these arguments for the first time to the BAP in an unauthorized brief and the BAP did not consider these arguments. Accordingly, we decline to entertain Bordenyuk’s challenges now. See Orr v. Plumb , 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The usual rule is that arguments . . . omitted from the opening brief are deemed forfeited.”); In re Burnett , 435 F.3d 971, 975 76 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Absent exceptional circumstances, issues not raised before the BAP *3 ar e waived.”).
Bordenyuk’s challenge s to the bankruptcy court’s denial of her motion for relief from the settlement o rder (“Reconsideration Motion”) are not properly before the court because Bordenyuk failed to amend her notice of appeal to the BAP to include the Reconsideration Motion and therefore the BAP did not consider those challenges. See Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 8002(b)(3); see also In re Slimick , 928 F.2d 304, 306 (“The untimely filing of a notice of appeal [to the BAP] is jurisdictional.”); In re Burnett , 435 F.3d at 975 76.
AFFIRMED .
[*] 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).