History
  • No items yet
midpage
William Cheng v. Arthur Osterback
698 F. App'x 383
| 9th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtors William P. Cheng and Janet Cheng appeal pro se from the *2 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 16-15759

[*] 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).

Case Details

Case Name: William Cheng v. Arthur Osterback
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Published: Oct 5, 2017
Citation: 698 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: 16-15759
Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.