Court Opinion

ID: 2962922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:03:43.824608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:03.633214
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 28, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1499                              BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,                                      Appellant,                                          v.                EASTERN AIRLINES FEDERAL FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, INC.,                                      Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                    Circuit Judges.
                                    ______________                                 ____________________            Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.
            _________________________            Geoffrey P.  Wermuth and Murphy, Hesse,  Toomey &  Lehane on brief
            ____________________     ________________________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Plaintiff has appealed from an order of the
                 __________            bankruptcy court  granting relief from the  automatic stay in            her Chapter 7  bankruptcy proceeding.  While  this appeal was            pending  before  the district  court,  plaintiff's Chapter  7            petition  was dismissed  by the  bankruptcy court;  no appeal            from  such dismissal  was  ever filed.    We agree  with  the            district  court that,  once the  dismissal of  the underlying            bankruptcy proceeding became final, the instant appeal became            moot.  As the  court stated under analogous circumstances  in            In  re Income Property Builders, Inc., 699 F.2d 963 (9th Cir.
            _____________________________________            1982) (per curiam):                 [T]he automatic stay provided in 11 U.S.C.   362(a)                 was dependent upon the operation of  the bankruptcy                 law, and that law was pertinent only because of the                 existence of the proceeding in bankruptcy....   Any                 power  that we  have with  respect to  the stay  is                 derived  from our  appellate  power  in  bankruptcy                 matters.    Once the  bankruptcy  was  dismissed, a                 bankruptcy court  no longer had power  to order the                 stay or to award damages allegedly  attributable to                 its vacation.   A  remand by  us to  the bankruptcy                 court would therefore be useless.            Id.  at 964;  accord,  e.g., Olive  Street  Invest., Inc.  v.
            ___           ______   ____  ____________________________            Howard Savings Bank,  972 F.2d  214, 215-16  (8th Cir.  1992)
            ___________________            (per  curiam); In re Universal Farming Indus., 873 F.2d 1332,
                           ______________________________            1333 (9th  Cir. 1989); cf.  In re Public  Service Co. of  New
                                   ___  _________________________________            Hampshire, 963 F.2d 469, 471 (1st Cir.) (noting that mootness
            _________            obtains "where  no effective remedy can  be provided"), cert.
                                                                    _____            denied, 113 S. Ct. 304 (1992).  
            ______

                 We  likewise agree  that, in  any event,  the bankruptcy            judge  did not abuse  its discretion in  granting relief from            the automatic stay.                 The  judgment dismissing  the  appeal on  the ground  of
                 ________________________________________________________            mootness is affirmed.  The  motion to reconsider hearing oral
            _____________________________________________________________            argument is denied.   
            ___________________                                         -3-