Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the matter of Robert W. HUNT, M.D., A Medical Corporation, Debtor, Peli Popovich Hunt, pro se, an individual, Agent and Trustee, Appellant, v. David M. Goodrich, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Robert W. Hunt, MD a medical Corporation, Appellee.
    No. 13-56778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 30, 2015.
    Peli Popovich Hunt, Beverly Hills, CA, pro se.
    David Gould, Esquire, Gould & Gould LLP, Calabasas, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peli Popovich Hunt, individually and as trustee of the Robert and Peli Hunt Living Trust, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting a preliminary injunction to Chapter 7 trustee David M. Goodrich. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We review de novo whether a case is moot, Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.2004), and we dismiss.

This appeal is moot because the bankruptcy court has entered final judgment, which Hunt has not appealed. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (appeal must be dismissed for mootness if it is impossible for the appellate court to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party); Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir.1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a preliminary injunction would have no practical effect, and is moot).

Goodrich’s request for judicial notice, filed August 19, 2014, is granted.

Hunt’s motion to supplement the record and request for judicial notice, filed June 12, 2014, and her motion to redact the July 25, 2014 Proof of Service and second request for judicial notice, filed August 11, 2014, are denied.

Appellant’s motion to recall the mandate, filed November 15, 2014, is denied.

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