FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 08 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: AMBER HOTEL CORPORATION, No. 14-56320
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00951-FMO
______________________________
JAMES J. LITTLE, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
AMBER HOTEL CORPORATION,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
James Little appeals the district court’s ruling that his appeal of the
bankruptcy court’s approval of Amber Hotel’s reorganization plan is equitably
moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d), 1291, and we affirm.
1. “In evaluating a dismissal on equitable mootness grounds, we review factual
findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” In re Transwest Resort
Properties, Inc., 801 F.3d 1161, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing In re Mortgages Ltd.,
771 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014)).
2. We have identified four factors to determine whether a bankruptcy case is
equitably moot. Id. at 1168-73. First, whether a stay was sought. Id. at 1168.
Second, whether substantial consummation of the plan occurred. Id. at 1168-69.
Third, what effect a remedy may have on third parties not before the court. Id. at
1169-71. Finally, whether the bankruptcy court can fashion relief that would not
completely unwind the plan. Id. at 1171-73.
Little failed to seek a stay. Furthermore, the reorganization plan has been
fully consummated. As a result, unwinding the plan would affect third parties not
before the court and the bankruptcy court cannot fashion relief without completely
unwinding the plan. All factors point in favor of the district court’s determination
that Little’s appeal is equitably moot.
AFFIRMED.
2