Silver v. Phh Mortgage Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE: MARCUS DANIEL SILVER, No. 25-4794 D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00149-FWS Debtor. ___________________________________ MEMORANDUM* MARCUS DANIEL SILVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 12, 2025** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. * 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).  Marcus Daniel Silver appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order overruling Silver’s objection to the proof of claim filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We dismiss the appeal as moot. This appeal is moot because the bankruptcy court dismissed the Chapter 13 proceeding in which Silver objected to the proof of claim. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “[i]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Silver did not cause the mootness of his appeal, vacatur of the decisions below is warranted. See id. at 902 (vacating district court and bankruptcy court orders where a bankruptcy appeal was mooted by dismissal of Chapter 13 proceeding); see also In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “if the appeal has become moot through no act of the party seeking relief, Munsingwear requires vacatur of both the judgments of the district court or the BAP and the bankruptcy court” (referencing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)). The decisions of the district court, In re Marcus Daniel Silver, Dkt. No. 59, Case No. 2:25-cv-00149-FWS (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2025), and the bankruptcy court, In re Marcus Daniel Silver, Dkt. No. 77, Case No. 2:24-bk- 2 25-4794 16664-DS (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025), are VACATED. Because we dismiss Silver’s appeal as moot, we do not consider his contentions addressing the merits of the bankruptcy court’s order. DISMISSED. 3 25-4794