In re: DONALD RAY GIBSON and SANDRA MAE GIBSON v. STEVEN M. SPEIER, Trustee; JURUPA VALLEY SPECTRUM

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DONALD RAY GIBSON and
SANDRA MAE GIBSON,
Debtors,
DONALD RAY GIBSON; SANDRA
MAE GIBSON,
Appellants,
v.
STEVEN M. SPEIER, Trustee; JURUPA
VALLEY SPECTRUM,
Appellees.
No. 11-60057
BAP No. 11-1028
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Markell, Kirscher, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
FILED
AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-60057 2
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Donald Ray and Sandra Mae Gibson appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
approving a compromise agreement between creditor Jurupa Valley Spectrum
(“Jurupa”) and trustee Speier. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We
review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the
BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re
Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the
compromise agreement because the record supports its conclusion that the
compromise was fair and equitable. See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784
F.2d 1377, 1380, 1383 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review, explaining
that the bankruptcy court’s failure to make specific findings does not constitute an
abuse of discretion where the record supports approval of the compromise
agreement, and noting that a court may approve a compromise agreement only
where it is fair and equitable); see also United States v. Alaska Nat’l Bank of the N.
(Matter of Walsh Constr., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982) (in approving
a compromise agreement, “[t]he bankruptcy court need not conduct an exhaustive
investigation into the validity of the asserted claim”).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-60057 3
The Gibsons’ contentions that Speier was biased in favor of Jurupa is
unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --