Case ID: br_572/html/0505-01.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: John Lee CHRISTAKIS, Debtor. John Lee Christakis, Appellant, v. U.S. Bank N.A., Appellee.
    No. 14-60013
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    John Lee Christakis, Pro Se
    Michael Curran, Jennifer Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 Christak-is’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 thé 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.