Filed: Jul. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-24-2006 In Re:Amer Metrocomm Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-5572 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "In Re:Amer Metrocomm " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 704. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/704 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of th
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-24-2006 In Re:Amer Metrocomm Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-5572 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "In Re:Amer Metrocomm " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 704. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/704 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-24-2006
In Re:Amer Metrocomm
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5572
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re:Amer Metrocomm " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 704.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/704
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CPS-258 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5572
________________
IN RE: AMER METROCOMM CORPORATION, et al.,
Debtors
THOMAS ABRAMS,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-1372)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
June 29, 2006
Before: BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: July 24, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Thomas Abrams appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his appeal
from Bankruptcy Court as untimely. Because we determine that the appeal is lacking in
arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Until 1998, Abrams was employed by debtor American MetroComm as a
paralegal. After being discharged, Abrams filed suit under the Louisiana Whistle-Blower
Act, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:967, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
Abrams and American MetroComm eventually settled the case and, on September 11,
2000, a Louisiana state court judge enforced the settlement agreement and dismissed
Abrams’ claims with prejudice.
On August 16, 2000, American MetroComm filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In
January of 2001, Abrams, acting pro se, filed a proof of claim for $100,000 based on his
Louisiana state court suit. The Trust Administrator, AMC Liquidating Trust (“AMC”),
objected to the claim and moved for summary judgment. AMC argued that Abrams’
claim was barred by the Louisiana state court settlement. On December 15, 2003, the
Bankruptcy Court granted AMC’s motion.
On May 18, 2004, Abrams appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order to the District
Court for the District of Delaware. In the District Court, AMC filed a motion to dismiss
Abrams’ appeal, arguing that Abrams’ notice of appeal was untimely. The District Court
granted the motion and Abrams timely appealed.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Having granted
Abrams leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we must now determine whether
his appeal should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal may be
2
dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether an appeal from the bankruptcy court to a
district court is timely is a question of law which we review de novo. Shareholders v.
Sound Radio, Inc.,
109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1997).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a), a notice of appeal
must be filed within ten days of the judgment or order which is appealed. The Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure contemplate situations where Rule 8002(a)’s deadline
cannot be met. Certain post-judgment motions, if timely, will extend the time to file a
notice of appeal. FED. R. BANKR. P. 8002(b). And Rule 8002(c) provides for an extra
twenty-day period when a party’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is due to
excusable neglect. A request for such an extension of time “must be made by written
motion . . . filed not later than 20 days after the expiration of the time for filing a notice of
appeal.” FED. R. BANKR. P. 8002(c)(2). After twenty days have passed from the
expiration of the time to file a notice of appeal, an assertion of excusable neglect will not
serve to extend period for filing an appeal. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d at 879.
Applying these rules, it is clear that Abrams’ appeal was untimely. Abrams filed
no post-judgment motions in the Bankruptcy Court. Abrams also did not file a motion
under Rule 8002(c) for an extension of time. Further, since Abrams’ notice of appeal was
filed more than five months after the entry of the Bankruptcy Court’s order, even if his
failure to appeal was due to excusable neglect, it was too late for him to benefit from any
extension under Rule 8002(c).
3
Abrams argues that he should be excused from Rule 8002(a)’s deadline for filing a
notice of appeal because he was called away for a family emergency and did not receive
the Bankruptcy Court’s order until just before May 18. Further, he argues that the
deadlines laid out in the Bankruptcy Rules should not be strictly enforced against him
because he is proceeding pro se. Finally, Abrams claims that the entire bankruptcy
proceeding is a continuing fraud which makes his notice of appeal timely. None of these
arguments is persuasive.
Abrams’ absence due to his family emergency is, at most, excusable neglect, and
will not toll the period for filing a notice of appeal absent an application under Rule
8002(c). See Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d at 879. We also note that, in the letter
accompanying his untimely notice of appeal, Abrams claimed that he had still not
received the District Court order at that time. Since Abrams was, in the end, able to
discover the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment, even though he had not received a copy of the
order, it remains unclear what actually prevented him from filing the notice sooner.
Abrams second argument is similarly without merit. We have never held that courts’
obligations to liberally interpret pro se pleadings justifies ignoring deadlines for filing an
appeal. See e.g. Poole v. Family Court of New Castle County,
368 F.3d 263, 266-69 (3d
Cir. 2004). Finally, regardless of whether the bankruptcy proceeding is a continuing
fraud, Abrams is appealing the particular order denying his claim, making the continuing
nature of the bankruptcy proceeding irrelevant.
In sum, we readily conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed Abrams’
4
appeal as untimely. Because his appeal lacks merit, we will dismiss it under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of the disposition of the appeal, Appellees’ motion to dismiss
and Appellant’s motion to stay proceedings are denied.
5
