
    IN RE: Kahtan BAYATI, Debtor, Kahtan Bayati, Appellant, v. William Musharbash; et al., Appellees.
    No. 15-60073
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Kahtan Bayati, Pro Se
    Bahram Madaen, Esquire, Law Offices of Madaen, Huntington Beach, CA, for Ap-pellees William Musharbash, Town Square M. Properties, LLC
    Nancy K. Curry, Chapter 13 Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Nancy K. Curry
    UST—United States Trustee, Los Ange-les, UST—United States Trustee, Los An-geles, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee UST—United States Trustee, Los Angeles
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kahtan Bayati appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting Town Square M Properties LLC’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and denying Bayati’s motion for reconsideration. We review de novo the question of mootness. Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We dismiss.

During the pendency of this appeal, the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing Bayati’s bankruptcy case, which Bayati appealed to the BAP. The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order and Bayati did not appeal the BAP’s judgment. We dismiss this appeal as moot because there is no longer any case or controversy and we lack power to grant any effective relief. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B); Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca-Castaic, LLC (In re Castaic Partners II, LLC), 823 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2016) (“In a bankruptcy appeal, when the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed and that dismissal is allowed to become final, there is likely no longer any case or controversy....”); Armel Laminates, Inc. v. Lomas & Nettleton Co. (In re Income Prop. Builders, Inc.), 699 F.2d 963, 964 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Once the bankruptcy was dismissed, a bankruptcy court no longer had power to order the stay or to award damages allegedly attributable to its vacation. A remand by us to the bankruptcy court would therefore be useless.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically-and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Bayati’s motion “to submit highlights of the oral argument in a short written form” (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition.is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     