Case Name: In re Howard Fletcher THRUSTON, Debtor, Howard Fletcher Thruston, Appellant, v. David M. Reaves, Trustee; National Bank of Arizona, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-04
Citations: 601 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 13-60010
Parties: In re Howard Fletcher THRUSTON, Debtor, Howard Fletcher Thruston, Appellant, v. David M. Reaves, Trustee; National Bank of Arizona, Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 532
Pages: 1043–1044

Head Matter:
In re Howard Fletcher THRUSTON, Debtor, Howard Fletcher Thruston, Appellant, v. David M. Reaves, Trustee; National Bank of Arizona, Appellees.
No. 13-60010.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed May 4, 2015.
Howard Fletcher Thruston, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Misty Weniger Weigle, David M. Reaves, Reaves Law Group, Kami M. Hos-kins, Esquire, Todd Blaine Tuggle, Esquire, Jennings Strouss & Salmon, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Howard Fletcher Thruston appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy. Appellate Panel's ("BAP") dismissal as moot of his appeal from the bankruptcy court's order approving the chapter 7 trustee's settlement of claims Thruston asserted in state court against the National Bank of Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review factual findings about mootness for clear error, and review legal conclusions de novo. In re Mortgages Ltd., 771 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Thruston's appeal as moot because there had been such a comprehensive change in circumstances as to render it inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. See In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.2012).
In light of our conclusion, we do not consider Thruston's arguments regarding the underlying merits.
Thruston's motion for an extension of time, filed October 29, 2014, is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted November 3, 2014.
Thruston's requests for oral argument, set forth in his briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.