FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9509878
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

In Re: Alicia Richards v. Richard Marshack

No. 9509878 · Decided June 3, 2024
No. 9509878 · Ninth Circuit · 2024 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 3, 2024
Citation
No. 9509878
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-55934 Debtor. D.C. No. 8:22-cv-00329-SB ______________________________ ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 29, 2024** Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Alicia Marie Richards appeals pro se from the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order holding her in civil contempt for failure to obey the court’s order to turn over real property. We dismiss this appeal as moot. This appeal is moot because during the pendency of her appeals, the bankruptcy court adjudged Richards to be no longer in contempt, and thus no live case or controversy remains for adjudication. See Thomassen v. United States, 835 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that “the purging of the contempt ordinarily renders the controversy moot” because “in most instances the court has no remedy to afford the party contesting the now purged contempt”). Because Richards’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal. Appellee’s request for summary affirmance, set forth in the answering brief, is denied. DISMISSED. 2 22-55934
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for In Re: Alicia Richards v. Richard Marshack in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 3, 2024.
Use the citation No. 9509878 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →