Case Name: In re: Roger N. FEARING; In re: Christine E. Fearing, Debtors, Roger N. Fearing; Christine E. Fearing, Appellants, v. David Seror, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-13
Citations: 222 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: No. 05-56650
Parties: In re: Roger N. FEARING; In re: Christine E. Fearing, Debtors, Roger N. Fearing; Christine E. Fearing, Appellants, v. David Seror, Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
In re: Roger N. FEARING; In re: Christine E. Fearing, Debtors, Roger N. Fearing; Christine E. Fearing, Appellants, v. David Seror, Appellee.
No. 05-56650.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 2006.
Filed Dec. 13, 2006.
Christine E. Fearing, Woodland Hills, CA, pro se.
Peter A. Davidson, Jr., Esq., Rein Evans & Sestanovieh, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtors, Roger and Christine Fearing (the Fearings), appeal pro se the district court's dismissal as moot of their appeal from the bankruptcy court's order approving a settlement of Ms. Fearing's state court action against California State University (CSU). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). After de novo review, see In re National Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc., 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1998), we affirm.
The district court did not err in dismissing the Fearings' appeal as moot. The relief the Fearings seek is to bring a state court action against CSU based on Ms. Fearing's exempt personal injury claim. However, the Fearings did not obtain a stay of the bankruptcy court's order approving the trustee's settlement of that claim, among others, and Ms. Fearing's action against CSU wás dismissed with prejudice on January 6, 2003. The district court cannot order the action reinstated. Thus, the appeal is moot, because "it [is] impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief." Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.