Case ID: f-appx_423/html/0675-01.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: INTERNATIONAL NORCENT TECHNOLOGY, a California corporation doing business as Norcent Technology, Inc., Debtor. U.S. Philips Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norcent Holdings, Inc.; International Norcent Technology, Inc., Defendants, David L. Ray, Trustee. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Receiver-Appellant.
    No. 09-56061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    David Koss Caplan, Anthony Michael Keats, Esquire, Larry W. McFarland, Keats McFarland & Wilson, Beverly Hills, CA, Sean A. O’Keefe, O’Keefe & Associates Law Corporation, P.C., Newport Beach, CA, Robert W. Pitts, Law Offices of Robert W. Pitts, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mette H. Kurth, Esquire, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants.
    David Bruce Shemano, Esquire, Peitz-man Weg & Kempinsky, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants, Trustee.
    Paul S. Arrow, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, Brian T. Harvey, Esquire, Alexandra J. Rhim, Buehalter Nemer PLC, Joshua D. Wayser, Katten Muchin Rosen-man, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Receiver-Appellant.
    Before: KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The appeal in this case is dismissed as moot, and the decision of the district court entered in June 2009 is vacated, in light of the satisfaction of judgment filed by appel-lee U.S. Philips Corporation in the related patent infringement case in March 2009.

Appellee’s theories for how a “case or controversy” still existed after its settlement with Jennifer Long are unavailing. The settlement extinguished appellee’s lien rights with respect to Ms. Long’s property, rendering moot the issue of appellee’s and appellant’s relative priorities, which was the subject of the appeal to the district court.

This matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the bankruptcy appeal as moot.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

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