Charles Abrahams v. Mathias Hentz , 601 F. App'x 570 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CHARLES L. ABRAHAMS, No. 13-56282
Debtor, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01560-GPC-
BGS
CHARLES L. ABRAHAMS,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATHIAS HENTZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Charles L. Abrahams appeals pro se from the district court’s order
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling his
objection to a creditor’s claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
We review factual findings about mootness for clear error, and review legal
conclusions de novo. In re Mortgages Ltd, 771 F.3d 1121, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014).
We affirm.
The district court properly determined that Abrahams’ appeal was equitably
moot because he did not seek a stay of the objectionable orders of the bankruptcy
court, and thereby permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to
occur as to render it inequitable for this court to consider the merits of the appeal.
See In re Mortgages Ltd., 771 F.3d at 1215-17; In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677
F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012).
We reject as without merit Abrahams’ contentions that (1) he was denied
due process because he is a pro se litigant; and (2) the Trustee and her counsel have
acted in bad faith.
Because we affirm dismissal of Abraham’s appeal as moot, we do not
consider his arguments on appeal addressing the underlying merits.
The Trustee’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this
appeal, set forth in her answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a
timely motion for attorney’s fees and a timely bill of costs.
2 13-56282
Hentz’s motion to dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds, set forth in his
answering brief, is denied.
Abrahams’ opposed Motion To Reconsider the Appellate Commissioner’s
Order, filed October 6, 2014, is denied.
Appellees’ requests for judicial notice, filed July 23, 2014 and July 29, 2014,
are granted.
Abrahams’ requests for a hearing or oral argument are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56282