Ahn v. Sanger ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEAH AHN, Case No. 23-cv-02459-JSC 8 Appellant, ORDER RE: APPELLANT’S 9 v. BANKRUPTCY APPEAL 10 PRIYA SANGER, MICHAEL SANGER, Re: Dkt. No. 1 and ALISA BAKER 11 Appellees. 12 13 Leah Ahn appeals a bankruptcy judgment dismissing with prejudice her claims. (Dkt. No. 14 1.)1 After the hearing on April 4, 2024, the Court allowed the parties to submit supplemental 15 briefing explaining why the appeal is not moot in light of (1) Ms. Ahn’s representation she no 16 longer owns an interest in the at-issue property and (2) the Sangers’ agreement the bankruptcy 17 discharge terminated their rights to proceed in personam against Ms. Ahn. (Dkt. No. 11.) Having 18 carefully considered the original and supplemental briefing, and with the benefit of oral argument 19 on April 4, 2024, the Court DISMISSES this appeal as moot. 20 DISCUSSION 21 “We will not entertain an appeal if the case is moot.” In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 22 F.3d 869, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court “has an independent obligation to consider mootness 23 sua sponte.” In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2005). “There are two mootness doctrines 24 to consider—one deriving from Article III of the Constitution, and one from equity.” In re Thorpe 25 Insulation Co., 677 F.3d at 880. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual 26 cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. An appeal is constitutionally moot if the 27 1 appellate court cannot grant any effective relief. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d at 880. An 2 appeal is equitably moot if “a comprehensive change of circumstances has occurred so as to render 3 it inequitable for this court to consider the merits of the appeal.” Id. (cleaned up). 4 Ms. Ahn appeals the bankruptcy court’s dismissal with prejudice of Ms. Ahn’s request for 5 (1) a declaration the Sangers’ 2018 post-petition renewal of the 2012 judgment against Ms. Ahn is 6 void as a violation of Ms. Ahn’s September 2014 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 524; and (2) a 7 determination the Sangers’ two 2018 abstracts of judgment on the 2012 judgment against Ms. Ahn 8 are invalid as violations of Ms. Ahn’s September 2014 discharge under § 524. (Dkt. Nos. 1-2 at 7, 9 4 at 10.) In essence, Ms. Ahn’s appeal concerns whether a judgment and two liens encumbering 10 the at-issue property are void. 11 I. Constitutional Mootness 12 “A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 13 cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) 14 (cleaned up). Ms. Ahn no longer owns an interest in the property at issue. So, she lacks a legally 15 cognizable interest in whether the 2012 judgment and 2018 abstracts of judgment encumbering the 16 property are void. Ms. Ahn’s appeal is thus constitutionally moot because it is impossible for the 17 Court to grant Ms. Ahn effectual relief on her claims. Id. 18 Ms. Ahn argues “a violation of a discharge is not moot so long as it occurred before the 19 sale of Debtor’s property.” (Dkt. No. 12 at 2.) But the question is whether Ms. Ahn’s claims 20 seeking to invalidate the 2012 judgment and 2018 liens are moot, not whether the 2012 judgment 21 and 2018 liens violated Ms. Ahn’s § 524 discharge. Because Ms. Ahn has no interest in the 22 property, she lacks a legally cognizable interest in invalidating the property’s encumbrances. So, 23 “any opinion as to the legality of the challenged action would be advisory.” City of Erie, 529 U.S. 24 at 287. 25 II. Equitable Mootness 26 The foreclosure of Ms. Ahn’s interest in the at-issue property is a “comprehensive change 27 of circumstances” rendering “it inequitable for this [C]ourt to consider the merits of [Ms. Ahn’s] 1 263 (9th Cir. 2021), where the Ninth Circuit ruled a bankruptcy appeal was not equitably moot 2 || because meaningful relief was still possible, meaningful relief for Ms. Ahn based on the claims on 3 appeal is impossible. Even if the Court were to rule in Ms. Ahn’s favor on the merits, the 4 || requested declaratory relief would be meaningless because Ms. Ahn lacks an interest in the 5 || property encumbered by the 2012 judgment and 2018 liens. Ms. Ahn’s supplemental brief fails to 6 || explain how invalidating the encumbrances of a property in which she has no ownership interest 7 amounts to meaningful relief. So, the Court will not entertain this appeal. 8 CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 6, 2024 12 ine JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28