Amr Mohsen v. Carol Wu

Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving settlement of litigation between the bankruptcy trustee and the insurer of Mohsen’s fire-damaged home. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the BAP’s decision, Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt), 171 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the set tlement because the record reflects the weaknesses of the lawsuit and the benefit of avoiding the delays, expense, and uncertainty of continued litigation. See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that where the record supports the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, the bankruptcy court’s approval of the settlement should be affirmed). Contrary to Mohsen’s contention, the bankruptcy court’s failure to address his objections to the settlement explicitly was also not an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1383-84 .

Mohsen’s due process contention fails because he availed himself of the opportunity to present written objections to the bankruptcy…