NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: PELI POPOVICH HUNT, No. 19-56250 Debtor. D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01610-AB ______________________________ PELI POPOVICH HUNT, an individual and MEMORANDUM* Trustee of Robert and Peli Hunt Living Trust; et al., Appellants, v. ELISSA D. MILLER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et al., Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Chapter 7 debtor Peli Popovich Hunt and Carmen Popovich, Gaston Popovich, and Miguel Popovich appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving a compromise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the chapter 7 trustee’s motion for an order authorizing and approving the stipulation and compromise to resolve cross-estate claims held by the bankruptcy estates of Peli Popovich Hunt and Robert W. Hunt, M.D., a medical corporation, because the compromise was fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986) (approval of a compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual foundation establishing that the compromise was fair, reasonable, and adequate); United States v. Alaska Nat’l Bank of the N. (In re Walsh Const., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Because the bankruptcy judge is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness of a particular compromise, approval or denial of a compromise will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 19-56250 in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 19-56250