Cahill v. AmeriCredit Financial Services Incorporated

Filing 13

ORDER this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/21/2015. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ann V. Cahill,

No. CV-14-01865-PHX-DGC
Appellant,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.,

13

Appellee.

14
15

Appellant Ann Cahill has appealed a decision of the bankruptcy court granting

16

relief from the automatic stay. Doc. 6 at 2. Appellee AmeriCredit Financial Services,

17

Inc. argues that the appeal is moot. Doc. 9. The Court agrees.

18

Cahill commenced a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding on May 2, 2014. Doc. 9 at

19

2; Case no. 2:14-bk-06610-EPB. In her bankruptcy schedules, Cahill listed a 2009 Saab

20

9-3 valued at $8,500 (the “Vehicle”). Doc. 9 at 2. Cahill stated her intention to “avoid

21

any and all liens” on the Vehicle. Id.

22

On June 10, 2014, AmeriCredit filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay.

23

Id. AmeriCredit noted that it had financed Cahill’s purchase of the Vehicle and that the

24

outstanding principle balance due under the contract was $26,210.42. Id. AmeriCredit

25

attached a copy of Cahill’s contract showing AmeriCredit as the lender.

26

AmeriCredit also included a copy of the title showing AmeriCredit as the lienholder on

27

the Vehicle. Id. Cahill responded by arguing that AmeriCredit may have securitized the

28

contract, but did not present any evidence. Id.

Id. at 3.

1

On August 1, 2014, the bankruptcy court issued an order terminating the automatic

2

stay with respect to the Vehicle. Id. On August 15, 2014, Cahill filed her notice of

3

appeal. Id. She received her bankruptcy discharge the same day. Id.

4

The automatic stay terminated as a matter of law upon entry of Cahill’s chapter 7

5

discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C); Doc. 9 at 3. Cahill’s appeal is therefore moot. The

6

Court cannot provide relief where the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law.

7

In re Perez, 2011 WL 6934471, *3-4, No. SC-0-1436-HKiMk (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 1,

8

2011); In re Lira, 2011 WL 4502090, *5, Nos. CC-10-1364-KiDMk, RS 09–36534-DJS

9

(9th Cir. BAP July 18, 2011); In re McIntyre, 2011 WL 4501322, *1 No. NC-10-1186-

10

JUHBA, BK. 10-10974 (9th Cir. BAP July 8, 2011). Because the appeal is moot, this

11

Court lacks jurisdiction. Internal Revenue Serv. v. Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 900 (9th Cir.

12

2001); United States v. Arkison, 34 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1994).

13

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

14

Dated this 21st day of January, 2015.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-