NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DONITA J. COLE, No. 16-16776
Debtor. D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02080-SRB
______________________________
DONITA J. COLE, MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MR CAPITAL, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Donita J. Cole appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
as equitably moot her appeal from a bankruptcy court order quashing lis pendens.
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We review for clear error factual
findings about mootness, and de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op Grp. v. ML
Manager LLC (In re Mortgs. Ltd.), 771 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cole’s appeal as equitably moot
because Cole did not seek or obtain a stay prior to her appeal of the bankruptcy
court’s order, and the real property at issue has since been transferred to a third
party. See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe
Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing factors to be
examined when determining equitable mootness). Because Cole has permitted
such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur, it is inequitable to
consider the merits of the appeal. See id.
We reject as without merit Cole’s arguments that the bankruptcy court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the bankruptcy judge was biased against
her.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cole’s requests to strike portions of the answering brief, and to take judicial
notice, contained in her reply brief, are denied.
2 16-16776
Appellee’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16776