Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0371-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Asatour BAGHDASARIAN, Debtor, Asatour Baghdasarian, Appellant, v. SRT Partners, LLC, Appellee.
    No. 11-60053.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
    Asatour Baghdasarian, La Crescenta, CA, pro se.
    Benjamin C. Logan, Esquire, Sanford M. Wall, Esquire, Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Karl Patrick Schlecht, Kimball Tirey & St. John, Irvine, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this casé is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Asatour Baghdasarian appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing as moot Baghdasarian’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s grant of relief from stay, allowing SRT Partners to proceed with an unlawful detainer action after purchasing Baghdasarian’s property in a foreclosure sale. 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 appeal as moot because the bankruptcy court had dismissed Baghdasarian’s case and the property at issue had been sold to a non-party. See Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 797-98 (9th Cir.1999) (“If an action or a claim loses its character as a live controversy, then the action or claim becomes ‘moot,’ and we lack jurisdiction to resolve the underlying dispute.”); In re Nat'l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc., 152 F.3d at 1180 (sale of debtor’s property to a non-party renders claims moot if debtor seeks only a return of his property).

SRT Partners’s amended request to supplement the record on appeal, filed on December 6, 2012, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.