NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court by way of pro se Debtor Tobia Ippolito's motions to intervene into the appeals of two separate orders arising from the same underlying bankruptcy proceeding.1 The Court reviewed all submissions in support and opposition, and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Mr. Ippolito's motion.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the underlying bankruptcy matter (the "Bankruptcy Proceeding"), Judge Gambardella entered two orders that were subsequently appealed to this Court. The first order was entered on May 25, 2016, and denied Ms. Ippolito's motion to dismiss Mr. Ippolito's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition (the "First Order"). Docket No. 16-3827, D.E. 20-1, Ex. 1 (the "Bankruptcy Docket") at D.E. 55. On May 31, 2016, Judge Gambardella entered an order granting Ms. Ippolito's request for relief from the automatic stay (the "Second Order"). Id. at D.E. 60. On June 7, 2016, Ms. Ippolito filed a notice of appeal of the First Order. Id. at D.E. 63. On June 8, 2016, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a notice of appeal of the Second Order. Id. at D.E. 64.

At all relevant times during the Bankruptcy Proceeding, Mr. Ippolito was represented by counsel.2 Mr. Ippolito's counsel was registered on CM/ECF, the Court's electronic filing system, and therefore received notifications that the notices of appeal were filed. Mr. Ippolito did not file a notice of appeal of either order, and he did not file an opposition to either of the appeals.

According to Mr. Ippolito, he was incarcerated multiple times in the summer of 2016. Docket No. 16-3827, D.E. 19-3 ¶ 7. On June 13, 2016, Mr. Ippolito was incarcerated for two days. Id. On June 20, 2016, he was incarcerated for "several days." Id. On August 6, 2016, he was incarcerated for fifty-one days until he was released on September 26, 2016. Id.

On October 21, 2016, Mr. Ippolito requested a conference call with the Court to address the alleged non-service of certain filings related to the two pending appeals. Docket No. 16-3808, D.E. 11. On November 18, 2016, the Court held the conference call and subsequently ordered that "if Mr. Ippolito wishes to participate in the above-referenced bankruptcy appeals, on or before December 6, 2016, he shall file a formal motion requesting to do so." Id. at D.E. 18. On December 7, 2016, Mr. Ippolito filed his motions to intervene.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Mr. Ippolito argues that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, he should be permitted to intervene in the appeals of the First and Second Orders. Mr. Ippolito maintains that while incarcerated, he was not served with either of the notices of appeal. T. Ippolito's Br. at 6. Mr. Ippolito contends that he was "without counsel during the statutory filing deadlines" and contacted the Court "as soon as practicable . . . to seek intervention." Id. at 7.

Ms. Ippolito responds that at all relevant times. Mr. Ippolito was represented by counsel and was properly served with all pertinent filings via CM ECF. L. Ippolito Opp. at 2. According to Ms. Ippolito, Mr. Ippolito had an opportunity to join in the bankruptcy appeals, but chose not to do so. Id. at 5. Therefore, she argues that pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8013(g), Mr. Ippolito should not be permitted to intervene. Id. at 6.

Intervening in a bankruptcy appeal is governed by Rule 8013(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which provides that

A potential intervener is generally not a party to the underlying bankruptcy matter. Here, Mr. Ippolito was (and still is) a party to the Bankruptcy Proceeding. Instead of filing a motion to intervene, he should have filed a motion to file an appeal or cross-appeal out-of-time. However, even assuming that Rule 8013(g) applies to a party of the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. Ippolito has not presented sufficient facts justifying the relief he seeks.

The crux of Mr. Ippolito's argument is that he was not on notice of the pending appeals because he was incarcerated and was not served with the pertinent documents relating to the appeals. Service, however, was effectuated upon Mr. Ippolito's counsel by means of CM ECT The notices of appeal for the First and Second Order were electronically filed on the Bankruptcy Docket on May 25 and May 31, 2016, respectively. At these times, Mr. Ippolito was represented by counsel, and was therefore properly served once the notices were posted on the bankruptcy court's electronic docket. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8011(b) ("Service on a party represented by counsel must be made on the party's counsel."); id. at 8011(c)(1) (stating that [s]ervice must be made electronically, unless it is being made by or on an individual who is not represented by counsel"); id. at 8011(c)(2) ("Service by electronic means is complete on transmission[.]") Moreover, on July 27 and 28, 2016, Mr. Ippolito's counsel (who still represented him at this time) was served with each appellant's brief and supporting documents. Docket No. 16-3827, D.E. 20-1 Exs. B and C. The fact that Mr. Ippolito was incarcerated3 at various times during the summer of 2016 and claims not to have been personally served with these documents does not change the analysis. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require service on the attorney of a represented party, not the party himself. Therefore, Mr. Ippolito was properly served and his motions to intervene are denied.4

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above. Mr. Ippolito's motions to intervene are denied. An appropriate Order on each docket accompanies this Opinion.