Summary
treating a delay of "almost six months past the original deadline" as timely in order "to provide Appellants with a decision on the merits"
Summary of this case from Sutton v. Eagle Vista Equities LLCOpinion
No. 16-15759
10-05-2017
In re: WILLIAM P. CHENG; JANET CHENG, Debtors. WILLIAM P. CHENG; JANET CHENG, Appellants, v. ARTHUR OSTERBACK; et al., Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01617-TLN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Chapter 7 debtors William P. Cheng and Janet Cheng appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing the Chengs' bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We affirm.
In their opening brief, the Chengs fail to address how the district court erred by dismissing their appeal for failure to comply with the court's order and as moot. As a result, the Chengs have waived their challenge to the district court's order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .").
Because we affirm the district court's order dismissing the Chengs' bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider their arguments challenging the bankruptcy court's orders.
AFFIRMED.