Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01801/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01801-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy Appeal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

In re: 

MICHELLE MARIE BALETTI CASE NO. CIV. S-06-1801 WBS

Debtor, (Bankruptcy Court No. 05-

27329-C7)

-----------------------------

(Adversary Proceeding No. 05-

PREM DHAWAN, 2302)

Plaintiff and Appellee,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

v. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL,

VACATE PRIOR ORDER, AND VACATE

JUDGMENT

A. LEWIS CHANDLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

-----------------------------

 ----oo0oo----

Currently before the court is Appellant A. Lewis

Chandler’s motion to dismiss his appeal, vacate this court’s

order of January 2, 2007, and vacate the bankruptcy court’s

Case 2:06-cv-01801-WBS Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is the third time that appellant has appeared 1

before this court in this matter. The facts of this case are

detailed in the court’s order of October 26, 2006.

2

judgment of July 6, 2006.1

On January 2, 2007, the court issued an order with

explicit instructions as to how the appellant should prosecute

his appeal. This court gave appellant fifteen days to file an

Opening Brief with this court. Appellant did not follow the

court’s instructions, and now argues that upon dismissal of his

appeal, vacatur of both that order and the bankruptcy court’s

judgment is mandated by the Ninth Circuit’s holding in In re

Pattullo. 271 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2001).

When a civil case becomes moot pending appellate

adjudication, “the established practice . . . in the federal

system . . . is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and

remand with a direction to dismiss.” Arizonans for Official

English v. Ariz., 520 U.S. 43, 71 (1997) (quoting United States

v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950)). “Vacatur is in

order when mootness occurs through happenstance--circumstances

not attributable to the parties--or, relevant here, the

unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.”

Id. at 71-72.

Appellant argues that appellee acknowledges the

mootness of this action and that the action became moot because

of appellee’s unilateral actions. The purpose of vacating is to

clear the “path for future relitigation by eliminating a judgment

the loser was stopped from opposing on direct review.” Arizonans

for Official English, 520 U.S. at 71. Appellee’s actions in this

Case 2:06-cv-01801-WBS Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

case did not have the effect of stopping appellant’s attempts to

seek review of the bankruptcy court’s order. The action was not

reviewed on the merits by this court because appellant did not

conform to the procedure laid out by the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure and this court’s order of January 2, 2007. 

Accordingly, the court will not grant appellant’s request to

vacate its and the bankruptcy court’s prior orders. However,

because a party may voluntarily dismiss its appeal, it will grant

appellant’s request to dismiss his appeal. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal be, and

the same hereby is, GRANTED;

(2) appellant’s motion to vacate the court’s order of

January 2, 2007, and the bankruptcy court’s order of July 6,

2006, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, and this appeal is

DISMISSED. 

DATED: June 12, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-01801-WBS Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3