IN RE SZANTO, 3:14-cv-00322-RCJ. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140917f16
Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Plaintiff-Debtor Peter Szanto asked the Court to withdraw the reference of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in its entirety based upon the alleged bias of the bankruptcy judge. The Court denied the motion, noting that: (1) the bankruptcy case had been dismissed on June 17, 2014; (2) the motion to withdraw the reference had been filed on June 18, 2014; and (3) a notice of appeal had been filed on June 19, 2014. Plaintiff-Debtor has asked the Court to reconsi
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Plaintiff-Debtor Peter Szanto asked the Court to withdraw the reference of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in its entirety based upon the alleged bias of the bankruptcy judge. The Court denied the motion, noting that: (1) the bankruptcy case had been dismissed on June 17, 2014; (2) the motion to withdraw the reference had been filed on June 18, 2014; and (3) a notice of appeal had been filed on June 19, 2014. Plaintiff-Debtor has asked the Court to reconsid..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Plaintiff-Debtor Peter Szanto asked the Court to withdraw the reference of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in its entirety based upon the alleged bias of the bankruptcy judge. The Court denied the motion, noting that: (1) the bankruptcy case had been dismissed on June 17, 2014; (2) the motion to withdraw the reference had been filed on June 18, 2014; and (3) a notice of appeal had been filed on June 19, 2014. Plaintiff-Debtor has asked the Court to reconsider and reopen his bankruptcy case. The Court denies the motion. The bankruptcy case has been appealed. This Court is presiding over that appeal, but the Court's jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) does not give the Court jurisdiction to enter substantive orders in the bankruptcy case itself while the appeal is pending. Plaintiff-Debtor's avenue of relief at this stage is via the appeal.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Reconsider and Reopen Case (ECF Nos. 9, 12) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
