Stephen T. Harris; David Woolsey v. United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEPHEN T. HARRIS; DAVID
WOOLSEY,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-56473
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02964-JVS-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Appellants Stephen Harris and David Woolsey seek to compel the
bankruptcy court to provide a hearing to challenge a temporary restraining order
requiring them to produce certain evidence for imaging. The bankruptcy court’s
order complied with the requirements for issuing an ex parte temporary restraining
order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), and presents no Fourth Amendment problems.
Thus, the district court properly denied appellants’ petition for a writ of
mandamus. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 408 F.3d 1142,
1146 (9th Cir. 2005).
Appellants also contend that the district court erred by imposing sanctions
on appellants’ attorney in the form of attorneys’ fees to opposing counsel. The
notice of appeal does not list their attorney as an appellant or otherwise make clear
that the sanction order is being appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(A), (c)(4).
We thus lack jurisdiction to disturb the sanction order.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --