Opinion
No. 19-60022 BAP No. 18-1139
03-09-2020
In re: FAROUK E. NAKHUDA, Debtor. ANDREW W. SHALABY, Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Brand, Kurtz, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Attorney Andrew W. Shalaby appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying Shalaby's April 14, 2018 Rule 60(b) motion to amend a sanctions order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court's ruling on a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Phillips v. Gilman (In re Gilman), 887 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shalaby's Rule 60(b) motion because Shalaby failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing required showing for Rule 60(b)(6) relief and explaining that relief may be granted "only where extraordinary circumstances" are present (citations and quotation marks omitted)); SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing conditions under which a court may modify an order under Rule 60(b)(5)).
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).
Shalaby's motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.