FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ANTONIA ALEMAN, No. 12-60085
Debtor, BAP No. 11-1423
ELIZABETH D. CAMPOS, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
ANTONIA ALEMAN,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hollowell, Hammond, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth D. Campos appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“BAP”) dismissal of her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s discharge of debt.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s
mootness determination, Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re
Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998), and
we affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Campos’s appeal as moot because reversal of
the discharge of debt could not provide Campos with effective relief, namely the
ability to have the judgment against Aleman declared nondischargeable, as the
deadline to file a complaint challenging the dischargeability of the debt, or a
motion to extend that deadline, had passed. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v.
United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (appeal must be dismissed for mootness if it is
impossible for the appellate court to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing
party); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c) (providing deadline for filing a
complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt and explaining that a motion
for an extension of that deadline “shall be filed before the time has expired”);
Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. v. Marino (In re Marino), 37 F.3d 1354, 1358 (9th
Cir. 1994) (noting that the deadline for filing a complaint to determine the
dischargeability of a debt is “strictly construed” and that, even if equitable powers
to extend this deadline did exist, they are “limited to situations where a court
2 12-60085
explicitly misleads a party” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); cf.
Motor Vehicle Cas. Co v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677
F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that “public policy values the finality of
bankruptcy judgments because debtors, creditors, and third parties are entitled to
rely on a final bankruptcy court order”).
Because Campos’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments on
appeal addressing the underlying merits or the bankruptcy court’s alleged bias.
Campos’s “application for order of default” and “prayer for relief,” filed on
September 26 and 27, 2013, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-60085