
    In re Scott C. TOWNLEY; Stephanie Tashiro-Townley, Debtors, Scott C. Townley; Stephanie Tashiro-Townley, Appellants, v. K. Michael Fitzgerald, Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 12-60001.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2014.
    Scott C. Townley, Maple Valley, WA, pro se.
    Stephanie Tashiro-Townley, Maple Valley, WA, pro se.
    
      Jason Wilson-Aguilar, Senior Staff, Office Of K. Michael Fitzgerald Seattle, WA, for Appellee.
    K. Michael Fitzgerald, Seattle, WA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Scott C. Townley and Stephanie Tashi-ro-Townley appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing as moot their appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of their Chapter 13 plan and dismissing their case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a determination that an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision is moot. Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed the appeal as moot because the debtors failed to seek a stay of the foreclosure sale pending appeal. See Onouli-Kona Land Co. v. Estate of Richards (In re Onouli-Kona Land Co.), 846 F.2d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir.1988) (“Bankruptcy’s mootness rule applies when an appellant has failed to obtain a stay from an order that permits a sale of a debtor’s assets.”).

The debtors’ request, filed on March 9, 2012, that this court take judicial notice of a motion in another case is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     