In Re: Partch

25-1685-bk In re: Partch UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of October, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IN RE: MARJORIE PARTCH, Debtor. __________________________ MARJORIE PARTCH, Debtor-Appellant, v. No. 25-1685-bk NICHOLAS MENSAH, GITA MENSAH,  Creditors-Appellees. * ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR APPELLANT: Marjorie Partch, pro se, Westport, CT FOR APPELLEES: Nicholas Mensah, Gita Mensah, pro se, Stamford, CT Appeal from a judgment and orders of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Victor A. Bolden, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment and June 26, 2025 orders of the District Court are AFFIRMED. Marjorie Partch, representing herself, appeals from the June 18, 2025 judgment and June 26, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bolden, J.) dismissing as moot her motion to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court and denying her subsequent motions for a hearing, recusal, and reconsideration. 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 We construe the District Court’s June 18, 2025 order “denying” as moot Partch’s motion to withdraw the reference as a final appealable order of dismissal. See D. Ct. Dkt. No. 10. 2  Partch’s opening brief focuses solely on the merits of her proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court and does not address the judgment and orders of the District Court. Because “[a]n argument not raised on appeal is generally deemed abandoned,” United States v. Prawl, 149 F.4th 176, 187 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation marks omitted), we could end our analysis here. “However, the abandonment rule is prudential, not jurisdictional, and we have exercised our discretion to review waived or abandoned arguments where the argument presents a question of law and there is no need for additional fact-finding . . . .” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Because the District Court’s judgment turns on a question of law, and because Partch is without counsel on appeal, we exercise our discretion to address the argument in her reply brief that the District Court’s mootness determination was wrong. “We generally review . . . questions of . . . mootness” anew, without deferring to the District Court’s conclusion regarding mootness. Doherty v. Bice, 101 F.4th 169, 172 (2d Cir. 2024) (quotation marks omitted). “Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, when a case becomes moot, the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the action.” Doyle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 722 F.3d 78, 80 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation modified). “The hallmark of a moot case or 3 controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed.” Neurological Surgery Prac. of Long Island v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 145 F.4th 212, 223 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation marks omitted). With these principles in mind, we conclude that the only “relief sought” by Partch, which is to remove the reference of her adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court, could “no longer be given” once the Bankruptcy Court dismissed with prejudice Partch’s bankruptcy and adversary proceedings––a dismissal that Partch does not challenge on appeal. Id. (quotation marks omitted). We understand that Partch may wish to bring other challenges relating to the conduct of the Appellees, Nicholas and Gita Mensah. But a plan to bring more challenges in the future does not revive the motion to withdraw the reference, which concerns only the adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court at issue in this appeal. We have considered Partch’s remaining arguments that are properly before us and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and June 26, 2025 orders of the District Court are AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 4