for approval of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and we dismiss the appeal for lack of prudential standing. 1. French Automobile’s appeal rests entirely on its claims that the bankruptcy court’s order was entered in violation of its due process rights under 11 U.S.C. § 363 and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001(b) and 7001(2). Because French Automobile had proper notice of the hearing on the trustee’s motion and failed to properly raise its due process claims to the bankruptcy court in the first instance in either its written response to the motion or at the subsequent hearing on the motion, French Automobile lacks prudential standing to raise these claims on appeal. See In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>). 2. Even if we declined to dismiss French
holding that provided the appellant has proper notice of the bankruptcy court proceeding attendance and objection at the proceeding are prerequisites to fulfilling the person aggrieved standard holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding