Brian Alfaro, et al v. Rick Reiley, et al, No. 19-51080 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 16, 2020.
Download PDF
Case: 19-51080 Document: 00515435771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 1, 2020 No. 19-51080 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk In the Matter of: PRIMERA ENERGY, L.L.C. Debtor BRIAN K. ALFARO; ALFARO OIL AND GAS, L.L.C.; ALFARO ENERGY, L.L.C., Appellants v. RICK REILEY; BETTY REILEY; VINCENT GILLETTE; SHARON WALLS; RICK GRIFFEY; THOMAS GILLETTE; DC OIL COMPANY; JAMES BUFORD SALMON; DAVID DAVALOS, Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18-CV-329 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-51080 Document: 00515435771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2020 No. 19-51080 The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure clearly specify how an appeal is taken and how the record on appeal is to be created. See generally Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001-8028. One such rule provides that “[t]he appellant must file with the bankruptcy clerk and serve on the appellee a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1)(A). Additionally, “[i]f the appellant intends to argue on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all relevant testimony and copies of all relevant exhibits.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(5). In this case, appellants failed to comply with these rules, and consequently the district court received no record on appeal from the bankruptcy court other than the bankruptcy court’s opinion. Notably, the record before the district court did not contain the transcript of the bankruptcy court’s six-day trial. Because it was “unable to review the evidence presented to the bankruptcy court,” the district court stated that it was unable to “conclude [that] the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous,” and so it “affirm[ed] the decision of the bankruptcy court.” On appeal to this court, appellants urge that the district court abused its discretion by affirming and denying their motion for leave to belatedly designate a record on appeal. But “it is clear that the dismissal of an appeal for failure to provide a complete transcript of the record on appeal is within the discretion of the court.” Coats v. Pierre, 890 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Appellants rely on Zer-Ilan v. Frankford (In re CPDC, Inc.), 221 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 2000). In that case, however, “the district court ha[d] an adequate record upon which to decide the merits of the appeal.” Id. at 700-01. Appellants also argue that the district court could have reversed the bankruptcy court’s judgment even without a transcript of the trial. That argument is undercut by the fact that the brief filed by appellants in the 2 Case: 19-51080 Document: 00515435771 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2020 No. 19-51080 district court relied on the trial transcript throughout. Even if appellants could have theoretically made their argument without relying on the record, they did not in fact do so. Finally, appellants argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order did not constitute a “final judgment” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Without a record to point to, appellants fail to demonstrate that the district court erred in concluding that the bankruptcy court’s judgment was “final and appealable.” The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
