Opinion
No. 16-60099
07-18-2017
In re: PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L. BRONSON, Debtors, PETER F. BRONSON; SHERRI L. BRONSON, Appellants, v. THOMAS M. THOMPSON, Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAP No. 16-1050 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Faris, and Lafferty, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their state law claims and closing an adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 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 dismissing the Bronsons' state law claim and closing the adversary proceeding because the underlying bankruptcy proceeding is complete. See Carraher v. Morgan Elecs., Inc. (In re Carraher), 971 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is within the bankruptcy court's discretion subject to considerations of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity).
We do not consider the Bronsons' contentions regarding the merits of the underlying adversary proceeding, which are not within the scope of this appeal.
The appellee's request for sanctions and attorney's fees, set forth in the answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.