IN RE: Robert W. HUNT, M.D., a Medical Corporation, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, an individual and Trustee of Robert and Peli Hunt Living Trust; et al., Appellants, v. David M. Goodrich, Chapter 7, United States Trustee; et al., Appellees.
Decided: July 22, 2020
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se Carmen Popovich, Pro Se Gaston Popovich, Pro Se Miguel Popovich, Pro Se David Gould, Esquire, Pro Se Hatty Yip, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Peter C. Anderson Allan D. Sarver, Esquire, Attorney, Pro Se Lee Ackerman, Pro Se James R. Selth, Pro Se Paul R. Pearlson, Esquire, Pro Se John Robert Armstrong, Pro Se
Peli Popovich Hunt, Carmen Popovich, Gaston Popovich, and Miguel Popovich appeal pro se from the district court's order rejecting their proposed pleading and denying leave to appeal pursuant to a pre-filing restriction imposed on Peli Popovich Hunt as a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's application of a vexatious litigant pre-filing order. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants’ pleading and denying leave to appeal because the proposed filing was within the scope of the district court's pre-filing order. See West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing of complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court's authority to effectuate compliance with its earlier order”).
To the extent that appellants seek to challenge the underlying pre-filing order or the merits of the underlying bankruptcy proceedings, we do not consider their contentions because such challenges are outside the scope of this appeal. See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 859 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellant Peli Popovich Hunt's motion to file supplemental excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied as unnecessary.
Appellants’ motion to strike the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.