Filed: Nov. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2008 Gabriel Atamian v. US Dept Ed Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2026 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Gabriel Atamian v. US Dept Ed" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 190. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/190 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2008 Gabriel Atamian v. US Dept Ed Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2026 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Gabriel Atamian v. US Dept Ed" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 190. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/190 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by t..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-26-2008
Gabriel Atamian v. US Dept Ed
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2026
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Gabriel Atamian v. US Dept Ed" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 190.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/190
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2026
___________
IN RE: GABRIEL G. ATAMIAN, MD, MSEE, JD, Debtor
GABRIEL G. ATAMIAN,
Appellant
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
SIGNET BANK
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-00355)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
__________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 21, 2008
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed November 26, 2008 )
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Gabriel G. Atamian, appeals from an order of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of summary
judgment in favor of the appellee. We will affirm as well.
I.
In November 2005, Atamian filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code. At that time, he owed approximately $25,000.00 in student loans to
the United States Department of Education. On January 20, 2006, Atamian initiated an
adversary proceeding against the Department of Education seeking a determination that
his student loans were dischargeable. Atamian alleged that he could not “maintain a
minimal living standard and repay the loan” because a “Jewish conspiracy of taking
Debtor for an ‘Arab’ has ruined the entire life of the Debtor since 1965.” (Compl. in
Bankr. D. Del. 06-50435.) In the complaint, Atamian also asked the Bankruptcy Court to
“designate a Christian Master” to investigate the “Jewish community’s” conspiracy to: (a)
prevent him from earning any income after 1982; (b) cover up the alleged murder of his
mother; and (c) mistreat his dental conditions.
On December 29, 2006, the Department of Education determined that Atamian
was entitled to an undue hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), and
administratively discharged the loans. The Department of Education then sought
summary judgment on the remaining conspiracy claims. By order entered May 10, 2007,
the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion. The court explained that: (1) there was no
genuine issue of fact as to Atamian’s dischargeability claim because the Department of
2
Education had agreed to discharge the debt; and (2) the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Atamian’s conspiracy claims because the claims did not involve the
bankruptcy estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. Atamian appealed to the District Court, which
affirmed by order entered March 31, 2008. Atamian now appeals to this Court.
II.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291.
The District Court had appellate jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court’s orders
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). In reviewing a determination of the Bankruptcy Court, we
exercise the same standard of review as the District Court, subjecting the Bankruptcy
Court’s legal determinations to plenary review, reviewing its factual findings for clear
error, and considering its exercise of discretion for abuse thereof. See Reconstituted
Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of the United Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. State of N.J. Dep’t
of Labor (In re United Healthcare Sys., Inc.),
396 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir.2005). A
bankruptcy court may grant summary judgment in an adversary proceeding “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 7056.
III.
Upon review, we agree with the District Court’s determination that the Bankruptcy
3
Court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Department of Education. First,
the Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that Atamian’s dischargeability claim was moot
because the Department of Education had agreed to discharge the debt. Second, the
Bankruptcy Court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Atamian’s
conspiracy claims. As the court explained, a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over only
those claims that are “at least ‘related to’ the bankruptcy.” In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park,
Inc.,
943 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). “An action is related to
bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom
of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the
handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins,
743 F.2d 984,
994 (3d Cir. 1984) (reversed on other grounds). Here, Atamian’s conspiracy claims were
unrelated to the bankruptcy because the outcome of these claims—i.e., a finding that the
Jewish community had somehow conspired to prevent Atamian from being employed, to
murder his mother, or to mistreat his dental conditions—would not have any impact
whatsoever on the administration of Atamian’s bankruptcy estate. Thus, the District
Court properly found that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction over Atamian’s
conspiracy claims.1
1
To the extent that Atamian asked the court to “refer” his conspiracy claims to the
Department of Justice for investigation, we agree with the District Court that the
Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that it did not have the authority to do so.
4
IV.
We have considered Atamian’s remaining arguments and find them meritless.
Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court. The motion for leave to file a
supplemental appendix, which is construed as a motion to expand the record, is denied.
5