Court Opinion

ID: 9406748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:01:04.49545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:32.896908
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                     FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    JUL 3 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,                   No. 20-60025

                   Debtor,                      BAP No. 19-1165

------------------------------
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,

                   Appellant,

  v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
et al.,

                   Appellees.

In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,                   No. 20-60026

                   Debtor,                      BAP No. 20-1046

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

SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,

                   Appellant,

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
 v.

ELIZABETH A. KANE, Trustee; et al.,

                Appellees.

                            Appeals from the Ninth Circuit
                             Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
           Lafferty III, Brand, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Sarah Margaret Taylor appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing Taylor’s appeals as moot. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a dismissal based on mootness.

Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

      In the opening brief, Taylor failed to address the basis for the BAP’s

dismissal orders, and therefore waived any challenge to the BAP’s dismissal

orders. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.

2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in

appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are

      **
             The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

                                         2                          20-60025 & 20-60026
waived).

      We reject as meritless Taylor’s contentions relating to standing, fraud, and

the doctrine of unclean hands.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                          20-60025 & 20-60026