Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Robert Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Robert Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 27, 2010 · O'Scannlain, Tallman, Bea
401 F. App'x 260

Counsel

Robert C. Konop, Playa Del Rey, CA, pro se., Chuck C. Choi, Esquire, Wagner, Choi & Evers, Honolulu, HI, Brett H. Miller, Esquire, Otterbourg Steindler Houston & Rosen, James H. Millar, Esquire, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Lisa G. Beckerman, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, New York, NY, Sydney P. Levinson, Esquire, Joshua M. Mester, Hennigan Bennett & Dorman, LLP, David P. Simonds, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Ronald W. Goldberg, Esquire, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Tom E. Roesser, Esquire, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Nicholas C. Dreher, Esquire, Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, Charles H. Hurd, Esquire, Hurd & Luria, Curtis B. Ching, Office of the United States Trustee, Honolulu, HI, Jonathan B. Hill, Esquire, Dow Lohnes PLLC, Washington, DC, Garry Cedric Pritchard, Esquire, Emil Ford & Co., Sydney P. Levinson, Esquire, Charles J. Moll, Esquire, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Tom E. Roesser, Esquire, for Appellee and Trustees.

Robert Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Konop’s motion to amend or clarify his proof of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Konop’s proof of claim did not include a request for equitable relief because the claim summary focused on monetary damages and included only a single, past-tense reference to equitable relief. See Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Konop’s motion to amend the proof of claim as untimely. See Roberts Farms Inc. v. Bultman (In re Roberts Farms), 980 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992).

Konop’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Konop’s request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.