Westfall v. Mil Liquidation, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Westfall v. Mil Liquidation, Inc.

317 F. App'x 679

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 9, 2009·No. No. 07-56536·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Footnotes

*

Willard Westfall appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order striking his class proof of claim in the liquidation of Mil Liquidation, Inc. and its subsidiary, AHP Liquidation, LLC.¹ Westfall’s appeal is moot because this court cannot fashion an effective remedy under the terms of the confirmed and substantially implemented plan of liquidation. See In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 922-23 (9th Cir.2004); In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793, 797-98 (9th Cir.1981): Furthermore, because Westfall abandoned his direct appeal of the confirmation order and failed to obtain a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings in this appeal, and because any remedy would adversely effect the interests of third party creditors not before the court, his claim is equitably moot. See Roberts Farms, 652 F.2d at 798; In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 187-93 (9th Cir.1977); see also In re Baker & Drake, Inc., 35 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (9th Cir.1994).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

Footnotes

*

Willard Westfall appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order striking his class proof of claim in the liquidation of Mil Liquidation, Inc. and its subsidiary, AHP Liquidation, LLC.¹ Westfall’s appeal is moot because this court cannot fashion an effective remedy under the terms of the confirmed and substantially implemented plan of liquidation. See In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 922-23 (9th Cir.2004); In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793, 797-98 (9th Cir.1981): Furthermore, because Westfall abandoned his direct appeal of the confirmation order and failed to obtain a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings in this appeal, and because any remedy would adversely effect the interests of third party creditors not before the court, his claim is equitably moot. See Roberts Farms, 652 F.2d at 798; In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 187-93 (9th Cir.1977); see also In re Baker & Drake, Inc., 35 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (9th Cir.1994).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Westfall v. Mil Liquidation, Inc., 317 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

317 F. App'x 679 (Westfall v. Mil Liquidation, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In the Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Company, Debtor (Ten Cases). Irving Bennett v. Paul Gemmill, Trustee, (Four Cases). Irving Bennett v. W. Lamonte Robison, Trustee, (Four Cases). Irving Bennett v. Paul Gemmill, Trustee, Jeremiah Milbank, and Milbank & Co., Irving Bennett, Entrada Industries, Inc. (Wasatch Chemical Division), Charles A. Steen, Individually, Charles A. Steen, as Custodian for His Sons and Heirs, and Charles A. Steen on Behalf of the Steen Foundation v. Paul Gemmill, Trustee

557 F.2d 179 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)

In Re Roberts Farms, Inc.

652 F.2d 793 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)

Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,065 in Re Baker & Drake, Inc., Dba "Yellow Cab", Debtor. Baker & Drake, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Nevada

35 F.3d 1348 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

In Re Focus Media, Inc., Debtor, Focus Media, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Company Inc. Abc Inc. Paxson Communications Inc.

378 F.3d 916 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Opinion

Footnotes

Related