JOHN CHRISTAKIS V., No. 14-60013 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JOHN LEE CHRISTAKIS, No. Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 12-1376 JOHN LEE CHRISTAKIS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-60013 MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. U.S. BANK N.A., Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Dunn, Pappas, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. John Lee Christakis appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order * 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). denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for clear error factual findings about mootness, and review de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgages Ltd.), 771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The BAP properly dismissed Christakis’s appeal as moot, because Christakis neither sought a stay of the bankruptcy court’s objectionable order, nor offered any reason for not doing so. See id. at 1215-16 (the court must first determine if appellant applied to the bankruptcy judge for a stay, or gave adequate reason on the record for not doing so). Christakis has accordingly permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur that it is inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. Id. at 1215-17; Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012). In light of our disposition, we do not consider Christakis’s arguments regarding the underlying merits. Christakis’s motion to take judicial notice of BAP transcripts (Docket No. 26) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 14-60013 2
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.
