In re: YOUSIF H. HALLOUM v. MICHAEL G. KASOLAS, Trustee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: YOUSIF H. HALLOUM,
Debtor.
______________________________
YOUSIF H. HALLOUM,
Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL G. KASOLAS, Trustee,
Appellee.
No. 14-60086
BAP No. 14-1170
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order
* 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
APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-60086
approving a settlement agreement between Halloum’s chapter 7 trustee and his
secured creditor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for
clear error factual findings about mootness and de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op
Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgages Ltd.), 771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir.
2014). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Halloum’s appeal as moot because Halloum
did not object to, or take an appeal from, the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing
the sale of estate assets. See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co.
(In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing
factors to be examined when determining equitable mootness). Halloum has
permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur that it is
inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. See id.
In light of our disposition, we do not consider Halloum’s arguments
regarding the underlying merits of the settlement agreement.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --