IN RE: Stan Joseph CATERBONE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.2021-09-22No. No. 21-2253

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing Caterbone's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the appeal was filed one day beyond the mandatory 14-day deadline under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1), and the timely filing of a civil appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.

Stanley Caterbone filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in January 2021, which the Bankruptcy Court dismissed in February for failure to pay the required filing fee. Caterbone then appealed to the District Court, but filed his notice of appeal on the 15th day after the dismissal order, one day after the 14-day deadline set by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The District Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on this untimely filing.

Caterbone appealed the District Court's dismissal decision. The appellate court reviewed the District Court's jurisdictional determination without deference and agreed that Caterbone's appeal was filed late. Under controlling precedent, the deadline for filing an appeal in bankruptcy matters is mandatory and jurisdictional. Because Caterbone failed to file within the prescribed timeframe, the District Court properly lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal. Caterbone's appellate brief did not contest the timeliness finding.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the deadline for appealing a bankruptcy court decision is mandatory and jurisdictional
Whether an appeal filed on day 15 rather than day 14 is timely
District Court's jurisdiction over untimely appeals from Bankruptcy Court

Procedural posture

Caterbone appealed from the District Court's dismissal of his appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing his Chapter 11 petition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

OPINION *

Stanley J. Caterbone appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal from the dismissal of his bankruptcy petition. We will affirm the District Courts judgment.

In January 2021, Caterbone filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 17, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition, as Caterbone had not paid the required filing fee.

On March 4, 2021, Caterbone filed a notice of appeal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The District Court informed Caterbone that his appeal appeared to be one day late and that his appeal also failed to comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009, as he failed to designate the record on appeal. The District Court ordered Caterbone to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Caterbone responded to the District Courts show-cause order, but he did not address the issue of his appeals untimeliness or his failure to comply with procedural rules. The District Court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and Caterbone timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) and exercise de novo review of the District Courts decision. See In re Denby-Peterson, 941 F.3d 115, 122 n.21 (3d Cir. 2019). We agree with the District Court that Caterbones appeal from the Bankruptcy Court was not timely filed—under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1), Caterbone had 14 days to appeal to the District Court, but his appeal was filed on the 15th day. The taking of a civil appeal “within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). And as we have explained in an opinion addressing one of Caterbones previous appeals, that precept applies in the bankruptcy context, too. In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[T]he prescribed timeline within which an appeal from a bankruptcy court must be filed is mandatory and jurisdictional.”). The District Court thus properly dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We will affirm the District Courts judgment.

FOOTNOTES

. Before dismissing the petition, the Bankruptcy Court gave Caterbone notice that it might dismiss the petition and gave him a chance to respond at a show-cause hearing.

. We note that Caterbones brief here makes no attempt to counter the District Courts determination that his appeal was untimely; indeed, the brief does not even mention the timeliness or untimeliness of his appeal from the Bankruptcy Court.

PER CURIAM