Jorgenson v. State Line Hotel, Inc.
Jorgenson v. State Line Hotel, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Suzanne F. Jorgenson appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”), which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of Jorgenson’s motion to vacate a prior order disallowing her claim against State Line Casino. As the facts and the procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, we repeat them here only as necessary.
We conclude that Jorgenson’s appeal is moot and therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits. Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1170 (9th Cir. 2007). While Jorgenson’s appeal was pending be fore this court, the bankruptcy court confirmed a bankruptcy plan for State Line Casino, and the related partnership debtors. All assets of State Line Casino were distributed and all creditors with allowed claims were paid in full. The bankruptcy court entered a final decree closing State Line Casino’s bankruptcy on March 31, 2005. State Line Casino no longer exists. Because we can grant no effective relief, Jorgenson’s appeal is constitutionally moot.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Nor are we persuaded by Jorgenson’s argument that this appeal is not constitutionally moot because we could fashion relief by ordering State Line Hotel, Inc., or Jim’s Enterprises, Inc., the remaining corporate debtors, to pay her claim from the purported "net cash available" after payment of allowed claims, other administrative expenses, and U.S. Trustee fees. Jorgenson asserted a claim only against State Line Casino and the record fails to establish that the purported net cash available was attributed to State Line Casino. Jorgenson’s reliance on In re Dynamic Brokers, Inc., 293 B.R. 489 (9th Cir.BAP 2003), for the contrary is misplaced. Unlike this case where the plan has been confirmed and all assets distributed, in Dynamic Brokers “only a small portion of the plan's payments ha[d] been made, and future payments could [have] be[en] adjusted if [the appellant's] claim must be paid in full." Id. at 494.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.