- Case Type:
- Case Status:
- CC-17-1249-TaLLs (9th Circuit, Jun 27,2018) Not Published
- BAP for 9th Cir. dismissed chapter 13 debtor's appeal of unspecified "orders" based on lack of jurisdiction. Debtor's pro se notice of appeal referenced various orders from prior to date of notice, but briefing only referenced orders that entered after notice of appeal. While Rule 8002(a)(3) allows for notice of appeal between announcement of order and entry of judgment, order, or decree, party cannot appeal an order on a motion that follows the notice of appeal.
- Procedural context:
- Bankruptcy court (CD Cal.) granted relief from stay motion; a year later debtor appealed to BAP for 9th Cir.
- Chapter 13 debtor's now-former spouse obtained stay relief allowing continuation of a state court dissolution of marriage case. The bankruptcy court specifically allowed enforcement of judgment against debtor's community property assets and also granted her relief from stay to pursue her remedies and any appeals in the state court matter. Approximately a year later, debtor filed a notice of appeal. In notice, debtor stated she wanted to appeal all "decisions made from August 10th thru 19th, dates: July 1, 2016 through and inclusive docket nos. 19  August 6, 2019 . . . ." Debtor also refrenced lifting of stay and attached a copy of her bankruptcy docket that ended with entry number 33--an August 18, 2016 stay relief order. Approximately two weeks later, debtor filed an ex parte application for an emergency order to compel the sheriff to open the doors of a house, and a motion for an expedited hearing. The bankruptcy court promptly denied the motions. Debtor filed similar motions again about a week later. The bankruptcy court again denied the motions. Debtor then filed (pro se) an informal opening brief in the appeal referencing the most recent motions, filed after the notice of appeal, and also referencing a motion to disqualify the bankruptcy judge. In response to an order to show cause, debtor failed to provide any coherent explanation or understanding of the timeliness issue.
- Taylor, Lafferty, Lastreto
PRICE v. SPOKANE ROCK I, LLC
Summarizing by Bradley Pearce
WHATLEY, JR v CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LTD
Summarizing by Lars Fuller
2771 in the system
7 Being Processed