Robinson v. Realty Industrial Loan Corporation, No. 3:2018cv00614 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/24/2018. Copy mailed to Appellant. (walk, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Realty Industrial Loan Corporation Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HAROLYNN C. ROBINSON, Appellant, Civil Action No. 3:18cv614-HEH V. REALTY INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORPORATION, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Appellant's Bankruptcy Appeal) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Harolynn C. Robinson's("Appellant") pro se appeal ofthe Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Relief from Stay (the "Order"), which was entered on August 8, 2018. Appellant noticed her appeal on August 24, 2018—^sixteen(16)days following the entry ofthat Order. For the reasons that follow, this Court will dismiss Appellant's appeal because it was not timely noticed, and therefore, the Court is without subject-matter jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court's Order. As a preliminary matter, this Court has an obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction to hear the cases that come before it. The Court may, accordingly, raise the issue ofsubject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any stage. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,506(2006). In general, federal district courts have jurisdiction over direct appeals taken from the bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provide that "a notice of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days Dockets.Justia.com after entry ofthe judgment, order, or decree being appealed." Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1).' The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to make such a filing deprives a district court ofjurisdiction to review the judgment or order ofthe bankruptcy court. See Smith v. Dairymen, Inc., 790 F.2d 1107, 1110-11 (4th Cir. 1986)(concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's judgment in the absence of a timely notice of appeal); see also In re Stagecoach Utils., Inc., 86 B.R. 229, 230(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1988)(stating in the context of a bankruptcy appeal that "[a] timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional and the court may consider the timeliness ofthe appeal sua sponte^)? As stated above,the Order that Appellant seeks to appeal was entered on August 8,2018. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on August 24, 2018—sixteen(16) days after the entry ofthe Order. In addition. Appellant has not filed any motion pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b), which may have extended the time for filing her notice of appeal in this case. Consequently, this Court is without subject-matter jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court's Order, and the matter will be dismissed. 'The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended ifa party files certain motions with the bankruptcy court. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b). Here, Appellant has not filed any motion that would extend the fourteen-day timeline established in subsection(a)ofthe Rule. The Court notes that Appellant has likewise failed to designate items for the record on appeal,see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009, and furthermore. Appellant has also failed to file an opening brief as required by Fed. Rs. Bankr. P. 8014 and 8018. ^ This Court recognizes that both Dairymen, Inc. and Stagecoach Utils., Inc. were decided under previous versions ofFed. R. Bankr. P. 8002, which required a notice of appeal to be filed within ten(10)days of thejudgment to be appealed. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(1986); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(1987). Nevertheless, even under the current version ofthe Rule, which has extended the period oftimely filing to fourteen(14)days,the requirement continues to be jurisdictional. See, e.g., Wilson v. Moss,No.5:152230-MBS,2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90898, at *2(D. S.C. July 13,2015)(dismissing the matter because the notice of appeal was filed 33 days after the bankruptcy court'sjudgment); O'Keefe v. Wolff, No. GJH14-3829,2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7928, at *2-4(D. Md. Jan. 23, 2015)(notice of appeal filed 31 days afterjudgment);see also Hinton v. Va. Union Univ., 185 F. Supp. 3d 807, 824(E.D. Va. 2016)(stating that unpublished opinions, while not binding precedent, are nevertheless persuasive authority). An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /si Henry E. Hudson Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia
]]>
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.
