In re: FRANCISCO JAVIER HERNANDEZ and JACQUELINE MARIE HERNANDEZ v. MARTHA G. BRONITSKY, Chapter 13 Trustee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: FRANCISCO JAVIER
HERNANDEZ and JACQUELINE MARIE
HERNANDEZ,
Debtors.
FRANCISCO JAVIER HERNANDEZ,
AKA Francisco Hernandez; JACQUELINE
MARIE HERNANDEZ, AKA Jacqueline
Hernandez,
Appellants,
v.
MARTHA G. BRONITSKY, Chapter 13
Trustee,
Appellee.
No. 17-60043
BAP No. 17-1041
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Brand, Kurtz, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-60043
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 13 debtors Francisco Javier Hernandez and Jacqueline Marie
Hernandez appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order
dismissing their appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(a). We have an independent obligation to determine our jurisdiction
over this appeal before proceeding to the merits. Golden v. California Emergency
Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2015). We dismiss this
appeal as moot.
During the pendency of this appeal, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
debtors’ separate appeal challenging the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their
bankruptcy case. Because the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order has become final,
there is no effective relief we can give to debtors in this appeal and we dismiss this
appeal as moot. See Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca-Castaic, LLC (In re Castaic
Partners II, LLC), 823 F.3d 966, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The test for mootness of
an appeal is whether the appellate court can give the appellant any effective relief
in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in his favor” (citation omitted)).
Because we dismiss the appeal as moot, we do not consider debtors’
arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --