Summary
dismissing bankruptcy appeal as moot where appellants "failed to obtain a stay from the bankruptcy court's 2008 order permitting [creditor] to foreclose on the office building"
Summary of this case from Torres v. Wells Fargo BankOpinion
Submitted, San Francisco, California July 27, 2015
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Markell, Dunn, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding.
PETER F. BRONSON, Appellant, Pro se, Scottsdale, AZ.
SHERRI L. BRONSON, Appellant, Pro se, Scottsdale, AZ.
For THOMAS M. THOMPSON, Appellee: Jimmie D. Smith, Attorney, Jimmie D. Smith, Yuma, AZ.
Before: D.W. NELSON, CANBY, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Peter and Sherri Bronson appeal pro se the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissing as moot their appeal from the bankruptcy court's denial of their Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of an order granting relief from the automatic stay. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP's mootness determination, Nat'l Mass. Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat'l Mass. Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.
Bankruptcy's mootness rule applies when a debtor has failed to obtain a stay from an order permitting sale of an asset. In re Onouli-Kona Land Co., 846 F.2d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the Bronsons failed to obtain a stay from the bankruptcy court's 2008 order permitting Thompson to foreclose on the office building, and have failed to show that any exception to the mootness rule applies to their case. See id. at 1172-73. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
DISMISSED.