In re: ALEX WATHEN v. RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ALEX WATHEN,
Debtor,
ALEX WATHEN,
Appellant,
v.
RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee,
Appellee.,
_______________________________,
HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC,
–.
No. 09-60043
BAP No. 08-01340-MoJuH
ORDER*
In re: FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ,
Debtor,
FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ,
No. 09-60044
BAP No. 08-1332-MoJuH
FILED
JAN 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Appellant,
v.
RICK A. YARNALL, Chapter 13 Trustee,
Appellee.,
_______________________,
HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC,
—.
In re: MELISSA J. STINE,
Debtor,
MELISSA J. STINE,
Appellant,
v.
RICK A. YARNALL,
Appellee.,
__________________________,
HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC,
____.
No. 09-60045
BAP No. 08-1335-MoJuH
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

-- 2 of 3 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for disposition
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hollowell, Montali, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) decided this case on
October 5, 2009. On January 25, 2010, the bankruptcy courts dismissed the
bankruptcies of Appellants Alex Wathen and Francisco Martinez for reasons
unrelated to this appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals that
become moot by the intervening dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy. See In re
Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the appeals for Wathen
and Martinez are DISMISSED.
Additionally, although Appellant Melissa Stine received ample notice of the
proceedings before the BAP, she failed to appear and participate in the resolution
of that appeal. Under In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th
Cir. 1985), an appellant lacks standing to challenge a decision rendered without her
participation or objection, see id. (“attendance and objection” at the prior
proceedings are “prerequisites” for standing to appeal). Accordingly, Ms. Stine’s
appeal is DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --