NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR, No. 20-60025
Debtor, BAP No. 19-1165
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
et al.,
Appellees.
In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR, No. 20-60026
Debtor, BAP No. 20-1046
------------------------------
SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,
Appellant,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
v.
ELIZABETH A. KANE, Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeals from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Lafferty III, Brand, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sarah Margaret Taylor appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing Taylor’s appeals as moot. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a dismissal based on mootness.
Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
In the opening brief, Taylor failed to address the basis for the BAP’s
dismissal orders, and therefore waived any challenge to the BAP’s dismissal
orders. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 20-60025 & 20-60026
waived).
We reject as meritless Taylor’s contentions relating to standing, fraud, and
the doctrine of unclean hands.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-60025 & 20-60026