In re: Peter Paul Mitrano, No. 2:2011cv00455 - Document 25 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying debtor Peter Paul Mitrano's 24 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 5/23/2012 22 , 23 memorandum opinion and order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/13/2012. (cc: Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court; appellant; attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON IN RE: PETER PAUL MITRANO, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 10-20476 PETER PAUL MITRANO, Appellant, vs. Civil Action No. 2:11-0455 HELEN M. MORRIS, Trustee, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is debtor Peter Paul Mitrano s motion for reconsideration of the May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion and order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court. First, Mr. Mitrano asserts that his due process rights were violated inasmuch as he was unaware that the trustee sought transfer of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412. As noted by the court at pages 3-4 of the May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion and order, the trustee specifically mentioned section 1412 in her objection to venue below. The assertion is thus not meritorious. Second, Mr. Mitrano asserts that there was insufficient evidence supporting the transfer decision. case. That is not the The objective proof supporting the transfer decision, namely, inter alia, the location of the assets in the case, debtor s residence, and the economical and efficient administration of the case, all pointed to the transferee district. The assertion is thus not meritorious. Third, Mr. Mitrano contends that this Court waived the position that this appeal should have been treated as an interlocutory appeal that this Court would entertain, when this Court, in fact, entertained this appeal. meaning of this challenge is unclear. (Mot. at 3). The As noted at page 16 of the May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion and order, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) inasmuch as the venue transfer order was interlocutory in nature and hence unappealable. The court additionally noted, in the alternative, that the venue transfer decision would survive appellate scrutiny in the event that appellate jurisdiction was later deemed to exist. The assertion is thus not meritorious. Based upon the foregoing discussion, Mr. Mitrano has presented no ground justifying reconsideration of the May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion and order. It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the motion to reconsider be, and it hereby is, denied. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court, counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: July 13, 2012 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge 2

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.