
    In re Alex WATHEN, Debtor, Alex Wathen, Appellant, v. Rick A. Yarnall, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee, Haines & Krieger, LLC, In re Francisco J. Martinez, Debtor, Francisco J. Martinez, Appellant, v. Rick A. Yarnall, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee, Haines & Krieger, LLC, In re Melissa J. Stine, Debtor, Melissa J. Stine, Appellant, v. Rick A. Yarnall, Appellee, Haines & Krieger, LLC.
    Nos. 09-60043, 09-60044, 09-60045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2011.
    
      Christopher P. Burke, Chris P. Burke & Associates, George Haines, Esquire, Haines & Krieger, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Debtor.
    Marianne Gatti, Esquire, Senior Staff, Las Vegas, NV, for Appellee.
    Rick A. Yarnall, pro se.
    Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) decided this case on October 5, 2009. On January 25, 2010, the bankruptcy courts dismissed the bankruptcies of Appellants Alex Wathen and Francisco Martinez for reasons unrelated to this appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals that become moot by the intervening dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the appeals for Wathen and Martinez are DISMISSED.

Additionally, although Appellant Melissa Stine received ample notice of the proceedings before the BAP, she failed to appear and participate in the resolution of that appeal. Under In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir.1985), an appellant lacks standing to challenge a decision rendered without her participation or objection, see id. (“attendance and objection” at the prior proceedings are “prerequisites” for standing to appeal). Accordingly, Ms. Stine’s appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     