Medina v. Poel, No. 1:2014cv01302 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: APPELLEES MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (Doc. 6 ), Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/18/2014. (Arellano, S.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 LUIS MEDINA, 1:14-cv-01302 LJO 6 Appellant, 7 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE:APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (Doc. 6) v. 8 WILLIAM P. VANDER POEL, 9 Appellee. 10 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 13 This case is on appeal from an Order of the Bankruptcy Court granting Appellee William P. 14 Vander Poel’s motion for summary judgment, which held that Appellant Luis Medina’s claims against 15 Appellee were discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Appellant’s Brief, Doc. 11 at 1. Currently before the 16 Court is Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 8002. Appellee’s Mot. To Dismiss, 17 Doc. 6-1, at 6. 18 19 II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE According to the Complaint filed in the underlying adversary proceeding, Appellant filed a 20 lawsuit in federal court against Appellee and the company of which Appellee was a principal (Tule 21 River Ranch) in January of 2008. Excerpts of Record (“ER”), v. I, tab 1, (“Complaint”), ¶ 6. The lawsuit 22 asserted that Appellee and his company were liable under various laws pertaining to wage and hour 23 matters. Id. The federal case was dismissed and Appellant filed a similar case in state court in November 24 of 2010. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. This case also asserted claims under California’s “Private Attorney General Act” 25 (“PAGA”), which authorizes the collection of civil penalties. Id. at ¶ 10. 26 Appellee filed for bankruptcy protection on August 8, 2012. Id. at ¶ 5. Seeking resolution as to 1 1 the PAGA suit, Appellee filed at least two adversary proceedings against Appellant in bankruptcy court. 2 First, Appellee filed the complaint at issue here, seeking a determination of dischargeability under 3 Section 523(a)(7) of any fines that might be levied in the PAGA case. Complaint at ¶¶ 3-4. The other 4 proceeding, initially filed March 10, 2014, seeks sanctions against Appellant for prosecuting the state 5 law case in violation of the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay order. In re Vander Poel, No. 14-01033, 6 Docs. 1 & 89 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2014).1 Appellee disputes having “any liability whatsoever” to Appellant and asserts that any debts he 7 8 might be liable for under the PAGA case have been discharged. Id. at ¶ 19. Appellee moved for 9 summary judgment on the basis that a) Appellant failed to properly file an adversary proceeding in 10 Appellee’s bankruptcy case, b) all claims against Appellee had been discharged, and c) that Appellant’s 11 claims could not be considered “nondischargeable” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). ER, v. II, tab 20 (“Poel 12 MSJ”), at ¶¶ 16, 27-30, 34. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion “in its entirety,” holding that all 13 claims asserted by Appellant were discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 on July 8, 2013. ER, v. IV, 14 tab 57 (“1007 Order”). The 1007 Order did not elaborate on the Bankruptcy Court’s reasoning, but its 15 analysis can be found in the hearing transcript. See ER, v. IV, tabs 58 & 59. III. LEGAL BACKGROUND 16 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 requires that “a notice of appeal must be filed with 17 18 the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree being appealed. Rule 19 8001 provides that a notice of appeal from a bankruptcy order or judgment “shall (1) conform 20 substantially to the appropriate Official Form, (2) contain the names of all parties to the judgment, order, 21 or decree appealed from and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of their respective attorneys, 22 and (3) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a). However, “[a]n appellant's 23 failure to take any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the 24 appeal, but is ground only for such action as the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel deems 25 26 1 This court may properly take judicial notice over all records in the underlying bankruptcy case. In re E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 1 appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.” Id. (emphasis added). Bankruptcy Rule 8001 endows the Court with discretion to dismiss an appeal without reaching 2 3 the merits when the appellant fails to perform a necessary step in completing the record. See In re 4 Hawkins, 295 Fed. Appx. 452, 453 (2d Cir.2008). However, a procedural violation of a bankruptcy rule 5 alone is generally an insufficient basis for granting a motion to dismiss an appeal. Fitzsimmons v. 6 Nolden, 920 F.2d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts have resolved appeals when the record, although 7 incomplete, is sufficient to enable an informed review of the parties' arguments. See, e.g., In re Kyle, 317 8 B.R. 390, 393–94 (9th Cir. BAP 2004), aff'd, 170 F. App'x 457 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing between 9 records that are “impossibly incomplete” or “merely incomplete,” “the merely incomplete record leaves 10 the appellate court with the possibility that enough of the record might nevertheless be present so as to 11 enable review.” “However, in “egregious circumstances, a court may dismiss an appeal for 12 noncompliance with procedural rules without explicit consideration of alternative sanctions.” 13 Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d at 1473 (citing In re Donovan, 871 F.2d 807, 808–09 (9th Cir.1989). IV. ANALYSIS 14 15 A. Whether the Appeal Must Be Dismissed Under Rule 8002 16 Appellee claims that Appellant did not timely file his appeal. Doc. 6-1 at 7. According to 17 documents provided by the Bankruptcy Court, its order in this case was filed August 9, 2014. Doc 1 at 1. 18 Thus, under Rule 8002, the deadline for appeal was August 25, 2014. Appellee filed his appeal on 19 August 18, 2014. Id. at 10. This appeal was timely and the Court DENIES Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss 20 on this basis. 21 B. Whether the Appeal Must Be Dismissed Under Rule 8001 22 Defendant also claims that this Court must dismiss the appeal because the Notice of Appeal is 23 improper. Doc. 6-1 at 6. Appellant’s “Notice of Appeal” identifies the appellant as “Luis Medina (for 24 the State).” Doc. 1 at 10. This document also identifies “Luis Medina on behalf of Real Party in Interest, 25 State of California” as a party to the judgment appealed from. Id. Defendant claims that the Court must 26 interpret this document as asserting that the State, and not Medina, is the actual appellant. Doc. 6-1 at 6. 3 1 Plaintiff claims that he is the actual appellant in this action and that he identified the State of California 2 as a party in interest because he believes that California has a substantial interest in this case. 3 Appellant’s Opposition, Doc. 14 at 2-3. The Court agrees that the Notice of Appeal filed in this case does not strictly conform with Rule 4 5 8001’s requirement to provide “names of all parties to the judgment, order, or decree appealed from . . .” 6 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a). However, this Court has previously held that Rule 8001 does not require 7 “strict and literal compliance ... in the sense that a failure to comply, however innocuous, spells doom 8 for the appeal.” Eickerman v. La Jolla Grp., II, No. CV-F-12-618 LJO, 2012 WL 4747236, at *8 (E.D. 9 Cal. Oct. 4, 2012) (quoting Fadayiro v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 371 F.3d 920, 923 (7th Cir. 2004)). 10 In Eickerman, this Court held that where the appellant provided the information required by 8001 “in his 11 pleadings and elsewhere, if not on the official form,” then he “substantially complied with Rule 8001.” 12 Id. 13 The reasoning employed in Eickerman applies here. To the extent that the information required 14 by Rule 8001 is not clear in Medina’s Notice of Appeal, this information is clearly presented in 15 Medina’s Opening Brief, which explains that the Appellant is “Luis Medina.” Doc 11. The record is 16 sufficient to enable an informed review of the parties' arguments. Moreover, Appellee does not argue 17 that any egregious circumstances apply. The Court DENIES Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss on this basis. 18 C. Whether Dismissal is Warranted Because of Alleged Noncompliance with State Law 19 Appellee also urges this Court to dismiss the appeal because Appellant allegedly failed to 20 comply with the administrative requirements of PAGA. Def.’s Mem. at 10-16. Appellee, however, 21 provides no authority whatsoever for the idea that any alleged procedural deficiencies in Appellant’s 22 state court case constitute a valid reason to involuntarily dismiss an appeal under the Federal Rules of 23 Bankruptcy Procedure. Moreover, because this issue does not appear to have been raised in the 24 underlying bankruptcy court case, the Court is uncertain as to whether the factual record is sufficiently 25 developed to support a ruling. In re Hall, Bayoutree Associates, Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) 26 (“A district court, reviewing a bankruptcy appeal, can decide an issue that is not raised on appeal, if that 4 1 issue is purely legal and is fully supported by the record.”). Finally, the Court notes that interests of 2 justice, and comity and respect for California law may warrant abstention on this issue- even if it were 3 properly raised. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1334(c)(1) (“[N]othing in this section prevents a district court in the 4 interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining 5 from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 6 11”); see also Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166–67 7 (9th Cir.1990) (laying out factors courts should consider in deciding whether to abstain under Section 8 1334(c)(1)). Thus, the Court DENIES Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss on this basis. V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 9 10 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 6. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 18, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5
]]>
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.
