Case Name: WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellant, v. MARIPOSA ROAD SELF-STORAGE ASSOCIATES LLC; et al., Debtors-Appellees, Max Chris Monson and Irene Murray Monson, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-14
Citations: 585 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 12-17381
Parties: WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellant, v. MARIPOSA ROAD SELF-STORAGE ASSOCIATES LLC; et al., Debtors-Appellees, Max Chris Monson and Irene Murray Monson, Appellees.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 420–420

Head Matter:
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellant, v. MARIPOSA ROAD SELF-STORAGE ASSOCIATES LLC; et al., Debtors-Appellees, Max Chris Monson and Irene Murray Monson, Appellees.
No. 12-17381.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 8, 2014.
Filed Oct. 14, 2014.
Alexander R. Arpad, Esquire, Nicolas Brian Hoskins, Director, Gerald L. Shelley, Fennemore Craig PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellant.
Scott H. Gan, Michael McGrath, Frederick J. Petersen, Esquire, Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, Tucson, AZ for Debtors-Ap-pellees.
Pat P. Lopez, III, Rusing Lopez & Li-zardi, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Appellees.
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wells Fargo Bank, NA, appeals the district court's order dismissing as moot its appeal of the bankruptcy court's order confirming the appellees' joint plan of reorganization. We review de novo, Rosem-ere Neighborhood Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir.2009), and we reverse and remand.
Wells Fargo suggests that relief is available, should its objections to confirmation be sustained, because the debtors could be directed to pay it additional money under the plan either as it currently reads, or through some modification. We agree that the possibility of resolution by money damages is sufficient to present a live controversy. See In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 883 (9th Cir.2012); In re Spirtos, 992 F.2d 1004, 1006 (9th Cir.1993).
Accordingly, the order of the district court, dated September 27, 2012, is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.