Baron Financial Corp. v. Natanzon (In Re Ern LLC)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1834
In Re: ERN, LLC,
Debtor.
----------------------------
BARON FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Appellant,
versus
RONY NATANZON,
Party in Interest - Appellee,
and
LAWRENCE D. COPPEL,
Trustee - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND,
Trustee.
No. 04-1951
In Re: ERN, LLC,
Debtor.
----------------------------
BARON FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Appellant,
versus
RONY NATANZON; ACQUISITION, LLC,
Parties in Interest - Appellees,
and
LAWRENCE D. COPPEL,
Trustee - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-04-2111-MJG; BK-04-20521)
- 2 -
Submitted: January 12, 2005 Decided: January 31, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brooke Schumm, III, David Bart Goldstein, DANEKER, MCINTIRE,
SCHUMM, PRINCE, GOLDSTEIN, MANNING & WIDMANN, PC, Baltimore
Maryland, for Appellant. Joel I. Sher, Paul M. Sandler, Robert B.
Levin, SHAPIRO, SHER, GUINOT & SANDLER, Baltimore, Maryland;
Bradley J. Swallow, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER &
HOLLANDER, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Baron Financial Corporation appeals from the district
court’s orders: (1) denying its motion for stay pending appeal
(No. 04-1834); and (2) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
authorizing the sale of the debtor’s assets in the underlying
bankruptcy proceeding (No. 04-1951). Because the assets have been
transferred in accordance with the bankruptcy court’s order and
Baron Financial has failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, we
grant the motion to consolidate these appeals and dismiss the
appeals as moot. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) (1994); Willemain v.
Kivitz, 764 F.2d 1019, 1021-24 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that sale
of property to secured creditor while appeal was pending rendered
appeal moot); see also In re Stadium Mgmt. Corp., 895 F.2d 845, 847
(1st Cir. 1990) (“absent a stay, the court must dismiss a pending
appeal as moot because the court has no remedy that it can fashion
even if it would have determined the issues differently”). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -