United States v. 2020-07-22 | 19-56250 | PELI HUNT V. ELISSA MILLER | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PELI POPOVICH HUNT,

Debtor.
______________________________

PELI POPOVICH HUNT, an individual and
Trustee of Robert and Peli Hunt Living
Trust; et al.,

Appellants,

v.

ELISSA D. MILLER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et
al.,

Appellees.

No. 19-56250

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01610-AB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*
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).
FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-56250
Chapter 7 debtor Peli Popovich Hunt and Carmen Popovich, Gaston
Popovich, and Miguel Popovich appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving a compromise. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s
decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of
review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation
Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the chapter 7
trustee’s motion for an order authorizing and approving the stipulation and
compromise to resolve cross-estate claims held by the bankruptcy estates of Peli
Popovich Hunt and Robert W. Hunt, M.D., a medical corporation, because the
compromise was fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C
Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986) (approval of a compromise is not
an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual foundation establishing
that the compromise was fair, reasonable, and adequate); United States v. Alaska
Nat’l Bank of the N. (In re Walsh Const., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.
1982) (“Because the bankruptcy judge is uniquely situated to consider the equities
and reasonableness of a particular compromise, approval or denial of a
compromise will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

3 19-56250
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.