Margaret Lucy GAUTHIER, Appellant, v. DOONAN, GRAVES & LONGORIA LLC; et al., Appellees, 690 F. App'x 964

MEMORANDUM Margaret Lucy Gauthier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion for contempt against appellees for alleged violations of the discharge injunction, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gauthier’s motion for contempt because Gauthier failed to demonstrate that appellees violated the discharge injunction by pursuing in rein proceedings. See Diaz-Barba v. Diaz-Barba, (In re Icenhower), 755 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review); Renwick v. Bennett (In re Bennett), 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (moving party has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the con-temnor violated a specific and definite order of the court); see also Johnson v.

Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991) (a discharge injunction extinguishes only personal liability and leaves intact an action against the debtor in rem). We reject as without merit Gauthier’s contention regarding the district court’s judicial notice of documents filed in the bankruptcy court proceeding. Gauthier’s requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 29, 30, and 34) are denied. To the extent that these filings include arguments not raised in the opening brief, such arguments are deemed waived. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appellee Doonan, Graves & Longoria LLC’s (“DG & L”) request to “strike the appeal,” set forth in its answering brief, is denied. Gauthier’s request to strike DG & L’s answering brief, set forth in the reply brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.