CITY OF VALLEJO, CA V., No. 12-60042 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 31 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: CITY OF VALLEJO, CA, Debtor, No. 12-60042 BAP Nos. 12-1020, 12-1021 MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL LIONEL, Appellant, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, CA; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS IAFF UNION LOCAL 1186, Appellees. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kirscher, Jury, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Michael Lionel, a creditor and member of the International Association of Firefighters IAFF Union Local 1186 ( IAFF ), appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel s ( BAP ) order dismissing as moot his appeals of the bankruptcy court s orders regarding a settlement agreement between Chapter 9 debtor City of Vallejo and IAFF. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a determination that an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision is moot. Nat l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The BAP properly dismissed the appeals as moot because Lionel did not seek or obtain a stay pending appeal and the settlement agreement has been fully executed, including the distribution of funds to third parties, rendering the bankruptcy court unable to fashion effective and equitable relief. See Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing equitable mootness). Appellees motion for leave to file a limited surreply is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 12-60042

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.