Opinion of the Court — Aiello v. Connolly

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: March 14, 2003
Case: Aiello v. Connolly
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

*361 MEMORANDUM ** Frank R. Aello appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing as moot Mello’s appeal of several bankruptcy court orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo, Arnold Baker Farms v. United States (In re Arnold Baker Farms), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm. The district court properly determined that Aello’s appeal of the bankruptcy court order approving the reorganization plan is moot because Aello failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, and the plan has been substantially implemented. See id.; Trone v. Roberts Farms, Inc. (In re Roberts Farms, Inc.), 652 F.2d 793, 797-98 (9th Cir.1981). Similarly, Aello’s appeal of the order approving the settlement between the bankruptcy estate and the United States Department of Health and Human Services is moot because Aello failed to obtain a stay pending appeal and the rights of third parties have intervened. See Arnold Baker Farms, 85 F.3d at 1420 . We reject Aello’s contention that the automatic bankruptcy stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362 , prevents his appeal from being deemed moot. Aello’s remaining contentions lack merit. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.