Case Name: In the Matter of: Roger N. FEARING; Christine E. Fearing, Debtors, Roger N. Fearing; Christine E. Fearing, Appellants, v. David Seror, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-14
Citations: 348 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 08-56977
Parties: In the Matter of: Roger N. FEARING; Christine E. Fearing, Debtors, Roger N. Fearing; Christine E. Fearing, Appellants, v. David Seror, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
Judges: Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
In the Matter of: Roger N. FEARING; Christine E. Fearing, Debtors, Roger N. Fearing; Christine E. Fearing, Appellants, v. David Seror, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
No. 08-56977.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Oct. 14, 2009.
Roger N. Fearing, Moorpark, CA, pro se.
Christine E. Fearing, Moorpark, CA, pro se.
Peter Alan Davidson, Ervin Cohen and Jessup, Beverly Hills, CA, for Appellee.
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bankruptcy debtors Roger and Christine Fearing ("the Fearings") appeal pro se from the district court's dismissal of their appeal from the bankruptcy court's order denying their motion for "adequate protection." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We dismiss this appeal as moot.
The facts of this case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.
In light of our determination in case number 08-56995 that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that the Fear-ings are not entitled to any proceeds derived from the sale of their former residence, this appeal is moot. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199, 108 S.Ct. 523, 98 L.Ed.2d 529 (1988) (stating that federal courts are limited to the adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.