In re: R2D2, LLC v. Ronald N. Tutor;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: R2D2, LLC,
Debtor,
ARAMID ENTERTAINMENT FUND
LIMITED and ARAMID
ENTERTAINMENT B.V.,
Appellants,
v.
RONALD N. TUTOR; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 13-55029
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05947-PSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 1, 2015 **
Pasadena, California
FILED
JUN 10 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and LAMBERTH,*** Senior
District Judge.
This case was decided by the bankruptcy court on June 18, 2012, and
affirmed by the district court on December 21, 2012. On May 27, 2015, the
bankruptcy court dismissed the underlying bankruptcy cases and on May 28, 2015,
the bankruptcy court denied the Trustee’s emergency motions for stay pending
appeal of the bankruptcy cases dismissal orders. Because this appeal has now
become moot as a result of the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy actions, we
dismiss.
“A case is moot if the issues presented are no longer live and there fails to be
a ‘case or controversy’ under Article III of the Constitution. 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.” In re
Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
The issue on appeal in this case is whether the district court erred in
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order disallowing RICO, fraudulent inducement,
and alter-ego liability claims brought by Aramid Entertainment Fund Limited and
*** The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Aramid Entertainment B.V. (Aramid) in the underlying bankruptcy cases. As these
bankruptcy cases have now been dismissed, it would be impossible for this court to
grant Aramid any effective relief in the event that we were to decide the matter on
the merits in favor of Aramid. Even if we found that Aramid could in fact bring
these claims, it would be “impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief”
because the bankruptcy actions have been dismissed. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d
898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal as moot.
In light of the court’s dismissal, reached before and independent of the
stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellants and
Appellees on June 5, 2015, the stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal
is DENIED as moot.
DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --