FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY L. BLIXSETH, No. 13-35246
Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00071-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB,
LLC; CREDIT SUISSE; AD HOC
GROUP OF CLASS B UNIT HOLDERS;
CIP SUNRISE RIDGE OWNER LLC;
ROBERT SUMPTER; NORMANDY
HILL CAPITAL L.P.; BRIAN A.
GLASSES; CIP YELLOWSTONE
LENDING LLC; CROSSHARBOR
CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 4, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant Timothy L. Blixseth (“Blixseth”) appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order vacating further hearing
on good faith prior to approving the Third Amended Plan of Reorganization (“the
Plan”). We affirm on the ground that Blixseth’s appeal is equitably moot.
Assuming, but not deciding, that Blixseth has standing to bring an appeal
from the order vacating a scheduled further hearing on good faith, this appeal is
equitably moot. Whether a bankruptcy appeal is equitably moot turns on several
factors, including whether the appellant has diligently sought a stay; whether the
plan of reorganization has been substantially consummated; whether the rights of
third parties will be affected; and whether it is no longer possible to fashion
equitable and effective relief “without completely knocking the props out from
under the plan.” See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re
Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2012).
Blixseth failed to seek a stay of the Plan in this Court. The remedy he seeks
here would require unraveling the Plan entirely. Because the Plan has been
substantially consummated, it is not now possible to give Blixseth the remedy he
seeks “without knocking the props out from under the Plan.” See In re Thorpe
Insulation Co., 677 F.3d at 880. His appeal as to the bankruptcy court’s order
vacating further hearings on good faith is therefore equitably moot.
2
AFFIRMED.
3