Glasser v. Blixseth (In Re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC)

1. We affirm the district court’s ruling that Defendants’ appeal of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion to vacate is moot. Where a party seeks injunc-tive relief but “the activities sought to be enjoined already have occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot, and must be dismissed.” Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2003); accord Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978). Defendants’ appeal is moot because Blixseth has already violated the injunction by selling the Tamarindo property and we cannot undo the sale.

2. Defendants argue that their appeal is not moot because, in their view, if we were to vacate the injunction, the finding of contempt would fall with it. It is true that the invalidity of an underlying injunc-tive order may be raised as a defense in civil contempt proceedings. Kirkland v. Legion Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (9th Cir.2003); Scott and Fetzer Co. v. Dile, 643 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir.1981). However, here, the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion to vacate was not the order underlying the finding of contempt. Defendants had previously consented to an…