
    In the Matter of HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Debtor. Robert C. Konop, Appellant, v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, Appellee.
    No. 09-16079.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
    Robert C. Konop, Playa Del Rey, CA, pro se.
    Bruce Bennett, Esquire, Sidney P. Levinson, Esquire, Joshua M. Mester, Hennigan Bennett & Dorman, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Tom Edward Roesser, Esquire, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop’s motion to have oral argument held in Pasadena, California, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining Hawaiian Airlines’ Second Supplemental Objection to Claim No. 72. 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 err in determining that it had jurisdiction to decide the Second Supplemental Objection to Claim No. 72. See Rains v. Flinn (In re Rains), 428 F.3d 893, 904 (9th Cir.2005) (bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction as long as it does not expand or alter the prior order that is on appeal).

Further, the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that James Gardner was a “user” under the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), who authorized James Davis to access Konop’s website. See 18 U.S.C. § 2510(13). Because liability is not triggered by “conduct authorized” by a “user” under the SCA, the bankruptcy court did not err by disallowing damages alleged in Claim No. 72 based on Davis’s access to Konop’s website using Gardner’s password. See 18 U.S.C. § 2701(c)(2).

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.
     