Opinion
No. 08-16128.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop's motion to have oral argument held in Pasadena, California, is denied.
Filed October 27, 2010.
Robert C. Konop, Playa Del Rey, CA, pro se.
Chuck C. Choi, Esquire, Wagner, Choi Evers, Honolulu, HI, Brett H. Miller, Esquire, Otterbourg Steindler Houston Rosen, James H. Millar, Esquire, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP, Lisa G. Beckerman, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld, LLP, New York, NY, Sydney P. Levinson, Esquire, Joshua M. Mester, Hennigan Bennett Dorman, LLP, David P. Simonds, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, Ronald W. Goldberg, Esquire, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Tom E. Roesser, Esquire, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Nicholas C. Dreher, Esquire, Cades, Schutte, Fleming Wright, Charles H. Hurd, Esquire, Hurd Luria, Curtis B. Ching, Office of the United States Trustee, Honolulu, HI, Jonathan B. Hill, Esquire, Dow Lohnes PLLC, Washington, DC, Garry Cedric Pritchard, Esquire, Emil Ford Co., Sydney P. Levinson, Esquire, Charles J. Moll, Esquire, Morrison Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Tom E. Roesser, Esquire, for Appellee and Trustees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00223-DAE-BMK.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BE A, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying Konop's motion to amend or clarify his proof of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court's determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Konop's proof of claim did not include a request for equitable relief because the claim summary focused on monetary damages and included only a single, pasttense reference to equitable relief. See Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Konop's motion to amend the proof of claim as untimely. See Roberts Farms Inc. v. Bultman (In re Roberts Farms), 980 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992).
Konop's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Konop's request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.