In Re: Alicia Richards v. Richard Marshack

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 22-55934
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-55934

Debtor. D.C. No. 8:22-cv-00329-SB ______________________________

ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, MEMORANDUM*

Appellant,

v.

RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtor Alicia Marie Richards appeals pro se from the district

* 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). court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order holding her in civil

contempt for failure to obey the court’s order to turn over real property. We

dismiss this appeal as moot.

This appeal is moot because during the pendency of her appeals, the

bankruptcy court adjudged Richards to be no longer in contempt, and thus no live

case or controversy remains for adjudication. See Thomassen v. United States, 835

F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that “the purging of the contempt

ordinarily renders the controversy moot” because “in most instances the court has

no remedy to afford the party contesting the now purged contempt”).

Because Richards’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments

addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

Appellee’s request for summary affirmance, set forth in the answering brief,

is denied.

DISMISSED.

2 22-55934