Antonia Aleman v. Antonia Aleman ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ANTONIA ALEMAN, No. 12-60084
Debtor, BAP No. 11-1410
ELIZABETH D. CAMPOS, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
ANTONIA ALEMAN,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hollowell, Hammond, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth D. Campos appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
*
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).
(“BAP”) dismissal of her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying her
application for waiver of the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 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.
The BAP properly dismissed Campos’s appeal as moot because the BAP
could not provide effective relief to Campos even if it did reverse the fee waiver
order because the deadline to file a complaint challenging the dischargeability of
the debt, or a motion to extend that deadline, had passed. See Church of
Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (appeal must be
dismissed as moot if it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the
prevailing party); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c) (providing deadline for filing
a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt and explaining that a
motion for an extension of that deadline “shall be filed before the time has
expired”); Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. v. Marino (In re Marino), 37 F.3d 1354,
1358 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that the deadline for filing a complaint to determine
the dischargeability of a debt is “strictly construed” and that, even if equitable
powers to extend this deadline did exist, they are “limited to situations where a
court explicitly misleads a party” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2 12-60084
Because Campos’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments on
appeal addressing the underlying merits or the bankruptcy court’s alleged bias.
Campos’s “application for order of default” and “prayer for relief,” filed on
September 26, 2013, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-60084