In the Matter of: PAUL HUPP v. Educational Credit Management Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hupp’s motion
for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: PAUL HUPP,
Debtor.
PAUL HUPP,
Appellant,
v.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Appellee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor - Appellee.
No. 08-56403
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00414-H-RBB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
FILED
JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56403 2
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Paul Hupp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order after a bench trial regarding discharge of Hupp’s student
loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo, Rifino v. United States (In re Rifino), 245 F.3d
1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly determined that Hupp failed to establish that
his current inability to repay the loans was likely to persist for a significant portion
of the repayment period and that he had made a good faith effort to repay the loans.
See id. at 1087 (outlining three-prong test for debtor to establish undue hardship
under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)); see also, Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Mason (In re
Mason), 464 F.3d 878, 885 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that debtor had not met his
burden of establishing good faith in attempting to pay back his loans because he
had not maximized his income and had not made adequate efforts to obtain
full-time employment despite his educational background).
Hupp’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --