Opinion
No. 07-4373-bk.
November 25, 2008.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of appeal No. 07-4373-bk, from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is VACATED as moot.
FOR APPELLANT: Edward Y. Crossmore, Ithaca, N.Y.
FOR APPELLEES: Russell Simonetta (Maxsen D. Champion, on the brief) Syracuse, N.Y.
Appellant CFCU Community Credit Union appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York which affirmed an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York denying Appellant's motion to have adequate-protection payments, see 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a), made directly to it rather than the Trustee. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the scope of the issues on appeal.
The Supreme Court has long held that "federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). As a preliminary matter, we must therefore determine whether there is a live case or controversy before us. If the case is moot, then federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss. Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of the State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994).
In this case, the administrative order's requirement that § 1326 adequate-protection payments be made to the Trustee only affected the rights of the litigants until the Debtor's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtors' plan was confirmed on February 15, 2007, before the District Court ruled on the matter. The District Court held that the question before it fell into the exception to mootness of a case that was capable of repetition yet evading review. We disagree. As the Supreme Court has observed, the exception for moot cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review arises "only in exceptional situations." City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983). We do not believe that this is such a situation. The issue does not necessarily evade review as it may be examined either if payments to the trustee cause damages to the party seeking protection payments or if the question were raised immediately through an expedited appeal to our court. Cf. In re Kurtzman, 194 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting the possibility that a bankruptcy trustee might be able to seek review of matter in a future case and observing that "this exception to mootness" requires that "the elapsed time that gave rise to mootness would always limit judicial review") (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark and citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and the case REMANDED with instructions that Appellant's appeal from the bankruptcy court's order be dismissed as moot.