USCA1 Opinion
October 28, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1499
BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,
Appellant,
v.
EASTERN AIRLINES FEDERAL FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, INC.,
Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se. _________________________
Geoffrey P. Wermuth and Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane on brief ____________________ ________________________________
for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff has appealed from an order of the __________
bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay in
her Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. While this appeal was
pending before the district court, plaintiff's Chapter 7
petition was dismissed by the bankruptcy court; no appeal
from such dismissal was ever filed. We agree with the
district court that, once the dismissal of the underlying
bankruptcy proceeding became final, the instant appeal became
moot. As the court stated under analogous circumstances in
In re Income Property Builders, Inc., 699 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. _____________________________________
1982) (per curiam):
[T]he automatic stay provided in 11 U.S.C. 362(a)
was dependent upon the operation of the bankruptcy
law, and that law was pertinent only because of the
existence of the proceeding in bankruptcy.... Any
power that we have with respect to the stay is
derived from our appellate power in bankruptcy
matters. Once the bankruptcy was dismissed, a
bankruptcy court no longer had power to order the
stay or to award damages allegedly attributable to
its vacation. A remand by us to the bankruptcy
court would therefore be useless.
Id. at 964; accord, e.g., Olive Street Invest., Inc. v. ___ ______ ____ ____________________________
Howard Savings Bank, 972 F.2d 214, 215-16 (8th Cir. 1992) ___________________
(per curiam); In re Universal Farming Indus., 873 F.2d 1332, ______________________________
1333 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. In re Public Service Co. of New ___ _________________________________
Hampshire, 963 F.2d 469, 471 (1st Cir.) (noting that mootness _________
obtains "where no effective remedy can be provided"), cert. _____
denied, 113 S. Ct. 304 (1992). ______
We likewise agree that, in any event, the bankruptcy
judge did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from
the automatic stay.
The judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground of ________________________________________________________
mootness is affirmed. The motion to reconsider hearing oral _____________________________________________________________
argument is denied. ___________________
-3-