In the matter of: BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS. BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS v. Linda Schuette

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, Lebbos’s
“Waiver of Argument,” filed on October 19, 2009 is denied as moot.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the matter of: BETSEY WARREN
LEBBOS.
BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS,
Appellant,
v.
LINDA SCHUETTE,
Appellee.
No. 09-15668
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01896-FCD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Betsey Warren Lebbos appeals pro se from the district court’s order
FILED
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-15668 2
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order of February 13, 2008 awarding attorney’s
fees and costs to chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee Linda Schuette as a sanction against
Lebbos, and the bankruptcy court’s order of June 18, 2008 awarding additional
costs to Schuette as the prevailing party. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court’s orders. Leichty v.
Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We must consider
jurisdiction sua sponte. Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857
n.1 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Schuette costs
in its order of June 18, 2008. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054(b) (stating that the
bankruptcy court may award costs to the prevailing party in an adversary
proceeding unless otherwise prohibited by federal or bankruptcy law); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1920 (listing recoverable costs).
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the February
13, 2008 order awarding attorney’s fees and costs because the notice of appeal was
untimely as to that award. See In re Souza, 795 F.2d at 857 (stating that a notice of
appeal must be filed within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 and “[t]he
untimely filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional”). Accordingly, we remand
to the district court with instructions to vacate the portion of its decision reviewing

-- 2 of 3 --

09-15668 3
the February 13, 2008 order. See id. at 858.
Lebbos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Schuette shall recover her costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --