Alex Wathen v. Rick Yarnall

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALEX WATHEN, No. 09-60043

Debtor, BAP No. 08-01340-MoJuH

ALEX WATHEN, ORDER*

Appellant,

v.

RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee,

Appellee.,

_______________________________,

HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC,

–.

In re: FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ, No. 09-60044

Debtor, BAP No. 08-1332-MoJuH

FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ,

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
 Appellant,

v.

RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee,

Appellee.,

_______________________,

HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC,

—.

In re: MELISSA J. STINE, No. 09-60045

Debtor, BAP No. 08-1335-MoJuH

MELISSA J. STINE,

Appellant,

v.

RICK A. YARNALL,

Appellee.,
__________________________,

HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC,

____.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
 Hollowell, Montali, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2010**
San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) decided this case on

October 5, 2009. On January 25, 2010, the bankruptcy courts dismissed the

bankruptcies of Appellants Alex Wathen and Francisco Martinez for reasons

unrelated to this appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals that

become moot by the intervening dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy. See In re

Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the appeals for Wathen

and Martinez are DISMISSED.

Additionally, although Appellant Melissa Stine received ample notice of the

proceedings before the BAP, she failed to appear and participate in the resolution

of that appeal. Under In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th

Cir. 1985), an appellant lacks standing to challenge a decision rendered without her

participation or objection, see id. (“attendance and objection” at the prior

proceedings are “prerequisites” for standing to appeal). Accordingly, Ms. Stine’s

appeal is DISMISSED.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for disposition
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).