Plan B Development, LLC v. Auburn Ace Holdings, LLC
PLAN B DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Appellant, v. AUBURN ACE HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
- Trial judge
- Richard A. Jones (district judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — The appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Consuelo M. Callahan (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Benitez
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 14 2010 PLAN B DEVELOPMENT, LLC, No. 09-35953 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01242-RAJ vs. MEMORANDUM *
AUBURN ACE HOLDINGS, LLC,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 11, 2010** Seattle, Washington Before: CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,*** District Judge.
The parties do not dispute that the debtor’s primary asset was sold during the bankruptcy process. Nor do they dispute that Plan B failed to obtain a stay of the * 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. proceedings while this appeal was pending. Therefore, we conclude that the transfer of that asset precludes us from providing meaningful relief. Trone v. Robert Farms, Inc. (In re Roberts Farm, Inc.), 652 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1981).
Plan B’s reliance on Popp v. Zimmerman (In re Popp), 323 B.R. 260 (B.A.P.
9th Cir. 2005) is misplaced, as in that case the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel could still provide relief based on a lien that remained on the property in that suit. Id. at 271-72. No such lien exists in this case.
The appeal is DISMISSED as moot.