In Re: Sarah Taylor v. U.S. Bank National Association

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR, No. 20-60025

Debtor, BAP No. 19-1165

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; et al.,

Appellees.

In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR, No. 20-60026

Debtor, BAP No. 20-1046

------------------------------

SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,

Appellant,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. v.

ELIZABETH A. KANE, Trustee; et al.,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Lafferty III, Brand, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Sarah Margaret Taylor appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing Taylor’s appeals as moot. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a dismissal based on mootness.

Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

In the opening brief, Taylor failed to address the basis for the BAP’s

dismissal orders, and therefore waived any challenge to the BAP’s dismissal

orders. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.

2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in

appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 20-60025 & 20-60026 waived).

We reject as meritless Taylor’s contentions relating to standing, fraud, and

the doctrine of unclean hands.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-60025 & 20-60026