Stephen YAGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David R. KITTAY; et al., Defendants-Appellees

Stephen YAGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David R. KITTAY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-55682 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 13, 2018 Filed March 22, 2018 Joseph Reichmann, Esquire, Attorney, Yagman & Reichmann, Venice Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Yagman, Pro Se Kenneth C. Feldman, Esquire, Attorney, Raul L. Martinez, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, CHRISTEN, 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 Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action against various parties involved in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review do novo, Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action against the bankruptcy trustee and his counsel as barred by the Barton doctrine. See Beck v. Fort James Corp. (In re Crown Vantage, Inc.), 421 F.3d 963, 970, 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (Barton doctrine applies to “a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer’s official capacity,” even after the bankruptcy is closed). Contrary to Yagman’s contention, the district court properly resolved the existence of subject matter jurisdiction on defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Because we affirm the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we do not consider the merits of Yagman’s claims. 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). AFFIRMED, This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.