IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Daniel A. Capen, M.D.; et al., Appellees

IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Daniel A. Capen, M.D.; et al., Appellees. No. 14-55845 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 26, 2017 Filed July 5, 2017 Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se Paul R. Pearlson, Esquire, Cameron & Pearlson, Long Beach, CA,- for Appellees Daniel A. Capen, Amir Azizi, Timothy J. Hunter, Khiem D. Dao, Howard J. Mar-ans, Maryam Azizi, Robert A. Rafael Daniel A. Lev, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Elissa D. Miller Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). [MAJORITY] MEMORANDUM Chapter 7 debtor Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order converting Hunt’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 7 proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm. In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in converting Hunt’s bankruptcy case. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the bankruptcy 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 review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). We reject as meritless Hunt’s contentions that the district court and bankrupt cy court lacked jurisdiction and demonstrated bias. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.