Kahtan Bayati v. William Musharbash , 689 F. App'x 867 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KAHTAN BAYATI, No. 15-60073
Debtor, BAP No. 14-1310
______________________________
KAHTAN BAYATI, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUSHARBASH; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kahtan Bayati appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting Town Square
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
M Properties LLC’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and denying Bayati’s
motion for reconsideration. We review de novo the question of mootness. Suter v.
Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We dismiss.
During the pendency of this appeal, the bankruptcy court entered an order
dismissing Bayati’s bankruptcy case, which Bayati appealed to the BAP. The BAP
affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order and Bayati did not appeal the
BAP’s judgment. We dismiss this appeal as moot because there is no longer any
case or controversy and we lack power to grant any effective relief. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(c)(2)(B); Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca-Castaic, LLC (In re Castaic
Partners II, LLC), 823 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2016) (“In a bankruptcy appeal,
when the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed and that dismissal is allowed to
become final, there is likely no longer any case or controversy . . . .”); Armel
Laminates, Inc. v. Lomas & Nettleton Co. (In re Income Prop. Builders, Inc.), 699
F.2d 963, 964 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Once the bankruptcy was dismissed, a bankruptcy
court no longer had power to order the stay or to award damages allegedly
attributable to its vacation. A remand by us to the bankruptcy court would
therefore be useless.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Bayati’s motion “to submit highlights of the oral argument in a short written
2 15-60073
form” (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
DISMISSED.
3 15-60073