Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 11 U.S.C. § 303(i). When a court dismisses an involuntary petition, § 3 Focus’ appeal as equitably moot. Appellees have not demonstrated that this case “present[s] transactions that are so complex or difficult to unwind that the doctrine of equitable mootness would apply.” Lowenschuss v. Selnick (In re Lowenschuss), 170 F.3d 923, 933 (9th Cir.1999). Because Focus seeks an exit instead of a do-over — i.e., the termination of bankruptcy proceedings and the dismissal of the trustee, rather than a complex corporate restructuring — the requested relief is not only possible but decidedly more practicable than the relief sought in other bankruptcy appeals we have dismissed as moot. See Baker & Drake, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n (In re Baker & Drake, Inc.), 35 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); cf. Mann v. Alexander Dawson Inc. (In re 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that either party to a divorce action may bring in third parties who claim an interest in the property alleged to be community or third parties themselves may intervene and have their rights therein determined (B) holding that a plaintiff must allege either an interference with specific third parties or an identifiable class of third persons (C) holding the family court has jurisdiction to join third parties when property is alleged to be marital but is owned by a third party (D) holding appeal not moot where bankruptcy proceedings involved third parties but unlike robehs farms and rochman v northeast utils serv group in re pub serv co 963 f2d 469 1st cir1992 the reorganization plan is not a complex billiondollar affair that has affected innumerable third parties (E) holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties
Output (English): holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties