In re: Alex Wathen, et al v. Rick Yarnall, No. 09-60043 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 03 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ALEX WATHEN, Debtor, ALEX WATHEN, No. 09-60043 BAP No. 08-01340-MoJuH ORDER* Appellant, v. RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee., _______________________________, HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC, . In re: FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ, Debtor, No. 09-60044 BAP No. 08-1332-MoJuH FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appellant, v. RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee., _______________________, HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC, . In re: MELISSA J. STINE, No. 09-60045 BAP No. 08-1335-MoJuH Debtor, MELISSA J. STINE, Appellant, v. RICK A. YARNALL, Appellee., __________________________, HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC, ____. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Hollowell, Montali, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2010** San Francisco, California Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ( BAP ) decided this case on October 5, 2009. On January 25, 2010, the bankruptcy courts dismissed the bankruptcies of Appellants Alex Wathen and Francisco Martinez for reasons unrelated to this appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals that become moot by the intervening dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the appeals for Wathen and Martinez are DISMISSED. Additionally, although Appellant Melissa Stine received ample notice of the proceedings before the BAP, she failed to appear and participate in the resolution of that appeal. Under In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1985), an appellant lacks standing to challenge a decision rendered without her participation or objection, see id. ( attendance and objection at the prior proceedings are prerequisites for standing to appeal). Accordingly, Ms. Stine s appeal is DISMISSED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(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.
