MAURA SANTANA V., No. 13-60006 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 04 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: MAURA SANTANA; TEODORO SANTANA, No. 13-60006 BAP No. 12-1186 Debtors. ______________________________ MEMORANDUM* ESPERANZA VENTUS BADA; LAW OFFICES OF ESPERANZA V. BADA, Appellants, v. NANCY K. CURRY, Chapter 13 Trustee; et al., Appellees. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Hammond, Hollowell, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Esperanza Ventus Bada, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing her appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The BAP properly dismissed Bada’s appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Bada did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period). AFFIRMED. 2 13-60006

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.