In re: BRANFORD PARTNERS, LLC, Debtor, All-Tex, Inc., Appellant, v. Branford Partners, LLC; Bert F. Fornaciari; Linda Cox Fornaciari, Appellees

In re: BRANFORD PARTNERS, LLC, Debtor, All-Tex, Inc., Appellant, v. Branford Partners, LLC; Bert F. Fornaciari; Linda Cox Fornaciari, Appellees. No. 08-60051. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 4, 2010. Filed March 25, 2010. Cynthia Futter, Esquire, Futter-Wells, PC, Santa Monica, CA, for Debtor. Anne Wells, Futter-Wells, PC, Santa Monica, CA, for Appellant. David S. Kupetz, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, Sulmeyerkupetz, A Professional Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, Frank T. Pepler, DLA Piper LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees. Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY] MEMORANDUM We have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel under 28 U.S.C. § 158, and we affirm. In a memorandum disposition to be filed simultaneously with this disposition, All-Tex, Inc. v. Branford, Partners, LLC, No. 08-60052, we have concluded that Bran-ford Partners, LLC, properly could avoid All-Tex, Inc.’s alleged liens and interests in the property. Given that decision, All-Tex no longer had standing to challenge the disbursement of the sale proceeds and its appeal was moot. See Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2003); Retail Clerks Welfare Trust v. McCarty (In re Van de Kamp’s Dutch Bakeries), 908 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1990). Judge Canby would affirm on the ground that the Debtor in Possession did not abuse its discretion in implicitly concluding that the All-Tex priority claim was valueless and not worth pursuing on behalf of the estate. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.