- Case Type:
- Case Status:
- CC-17-1335-KuLS, CC-17-1337-KuLS, CC-17-1346-KuLS (9th Circuit, Jun 28,2018) Published
- BAP for 9th Circuit dismissed appeals based on lack of jurisdiction. Time to appeal under FRBP 8002(d)(1)(B) was statutory and jurisdictional, not "mandatory claim-processing rule," i.e., court-made time limit. Consequently, BAP lacked jurisdiction to consider excusable neglect arguments. 28 USC 158(c)(2) expressly references FRBP 8002 time limits. Historical US Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent consistently treat FRBP 8002 time limits as jurisdictional.
- Procedural context:
- Bankruptcy court (CD Cal.) entered three orders. Debtor filed single notice of appeal of orders with BAP for 9th Cir.
- Ch. 7 debtor appealed from bankruptcy court (CD Cal.) orders (1) granting motion to convert chapter 13 case to chapter 7; (2) granting trustee's motion to sell real property; and (3) granting trustee's motion for turnover and writ of possession. Debtor filed single notice of appeal after 14 day deadline expired under FRBP 8002(d)(1).
- Kurtz, Lafferty, Spraker
United Bank v. Buckingham
Summarizing by Shane Ramsey
2857 in the system
13 Being Processed