FILED JUN 27 2024 NOT FOR PUBLICATION SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: BAP No. NC-24-1022-FBG ARTEM KOSHKALDA, Debtor. Bk. No. 18-30016

ARTEM KOSHKALDA, Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California Hannah L. Blumenstiel, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding

Before: FARIS, BRAND, and GAN, Bankruptcy Judges.

Chapter 7 1 debtor Artem Koshkalda is a vexatious litigant. See

Koshkalda v. Schoenmann (In re Koshkalda),

, 760-68 (9th Cir. BAP

2020). The bankruptcy court entered an Amended Pre-Filing Order that

requires him to meet certain requirements before he may file documents.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1. Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the 1

Bankruptcy Code,

. He appeals the bankruptcy court’s refusal to allow him to file a motion

requesting information about his case from the chapter 7 trustee. We

AFFIRM.

Mr. Koshkalda does not challenge the Amended Pre-Filing Order in

this appeal. Rather, he contests the bankruptcy court’s decision that he did

not comply with it. We review this decision for abuse of discretion. Haugen

v. Isani (In re Haugen), BAP No. NV-05-1458-MoSMa,

, at

*2 (9th Cir. BAP June 15, 2006), aff’d,

(9th Cir. 2007); see

Hunt v. Goodrich (In re Hunt),

, 308 (9th Cir. 2020)

(discerning no abuse of discretion when the rejected document was within

the scope of the pre-filing order).

The bankruptcy court correctly determined that Mr. Koshkalda’s

declaration in support of his application failed adequately to provide four

of the six categories of information that the Amended Pre-Filing Order

requires. Mr. Koshkalda’s broad statements, essentially parroting the

language of the Amended Pre-Filing Order, did not provide the specific

information required by that order.

The bankruptcy court also found that Mr. Koshkalda’s proposed

motion was another means to harass the trustee, her professionals, and

certain creditors. This finding was not clearly erroneous. We reject

Mr. Koshkalda’s argument that he had a proper reason to seek information

about the status of his case because he thinks that certain orders that he

wishes to appeal will not become final until his case is closed. But this

2 explanation does not hold water: he never identified those orders or

explained why they are not currently appealable under the doctrine of

“flexible finality” applicable to bankruptcy cases.

At oral argument, Mr. Koshkalda asked us to help him get his case

closed. (His requests were confusing, but we think that is the gist of it.) We

reject this request. Our job is to review decisions of the bankruptcy court,

not to advise parties about how they might induce the bankruptcy court to

grant the relief they want. We also reject any new argument that

Mr. Koshkalda had not previously raised in the bankruptcy court or in his

opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright,

, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We AFFIRM.

3