Ben-Baruch v. Island Properties

362 B.R. 565, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12016, 2007 WL 530031
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 2007
Docket05-CV-5684 (SJF), 06-CV-1183 (SJF)
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 362 B.R. 565 (Ben-Baruch v. Island Properties) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ben-Baruch v. Island Properties, 362 B.R. 565, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12016, 2007 WL 530031 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

Opinion

*566 OPINION & ORDER

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

On July 26, 2006, the Court granted Robert L. Pryor’s (“Appellee”), the Chapter 7 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Marlene Ben-Baruch (“Appellant”), motion to dismiss Appellant’s two (2) appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bernstein, J.). Appellant now moves for vacatur pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Alternatively, Appellant moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006, for an extension of time to file a designation of the record on appeal as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006. For the reasons set forth below, Appellant’s motion is denied.

II. Discussion

1. Motion for Vacatur

Appellant filed her motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) as made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Fed. R. Bankr.P.”). She essentially seeks reconsideration of the Court’s July 26, 2006 Order.

Appeals of bankruptcy judgements to district courts are governed by Part VIII of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8001-8020. Part VIII does not incorporate Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. Moreover, Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a) proscribes the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to bankruptcy proceedings unless they are specifically made applicable by a provision of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a). 1 See In re Lisanti Foods, Inc., No. 04-3868, 2006 WL 2927619, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2006).

Although Rule 60 is made applicable to cases under the Bankruptcy Code by Bankruptcy Rule 9024, it applies only to judgments or orders of the bankruptcy court, and not to judgments or orders of a district court exercising appellant jurisdiction in a bankruptcy case. See Aycock v. Eaton (Matter of Eichelberger), 943 F.2d 536, 538 n. 3 (5th Cir.1991); Butler v. Merchs. Bank & Trust Co. (Matter of Butler), 2 F.3d 154, 155 (5th Cir.1993); In re Lisanti Foods, Inc., No. 04-3868, 2006 WL 2927619, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2006); In re Brenner, No. 89-8322, 1991 WL 239942, at *1-2 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 8, 1991); In re Conn Aire, Inc., 91 B.R. 462, 462 n. 2 (M.D.Tenn.1988); In re Shiflett, No. 87-719, 1988 WL 62508, at *1 (D.Md. June 9, 1988). See also English-Speaking Union v. Johnson, 353 F.3d 1013, 1019 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (discussing rationales in support while declining to resolve issue).

Bankruptcy Rule 8015 governs Appellant’s motion. See Matter of Butler, 2 F.3d at 155 (quoting Matter of Eichelberger, 943 F.2d at 538) (“When the district court is acting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case, ‘Bankruptcy Rule 8015 provides the sole mechanism for filing a motion for rehearing.’ ”). See also In re Zegeye, No. 2004-1387, 2005 WL 544763, at *1 (D.Md. March 4, 2005). Therefore, the Court will treat Appellant’s request for relief as a motion for rehearing pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8015.

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8015, a motion for rehearing must be filed within ten (10) days after entry of judgment by the district court, unless a court’s order or local rules provide otherwise. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8015. 2 Local Rule 6.3 sets a *567 10(ten) day filing requirement for motions for reconsideration and rehearing. Local Rule of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York 6.3. Thus, under either Bankruptcy Rule 8015 or Local Rule 6.3, a motion for reconsideration or rehearing must be filed -within ten (10) days of entry of judgment.

The computation of time periods in bankruptcy proceedings is governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a). See Williams v. EMC Mortgage Corp. (In re Williams), 216 F.3d 1295, 1297 n. 3 (11th Cir.2000); Matter of Eichelberger, 943 F.2d at 539; In re Singer Co. N.V., No. M-47, 2002 WL 10452, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2002). Under Rule 9006(a), when the time prescribed is more than eight (8) days, the day of the act or event (here, entry of judgment) is excluded; intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are included; and the last day of the period is included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or a day in which the clerk’s office is inaccessible due to weather or other conditions. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(a). 3

In this case, the Clerk’s judgment of dismissal was dated Wednesday, July 26, 2006, but not entered until Tuesday, August 8, 2006. Dkt. No. 17. Excluding August 8, and including the intermediate Saturday and Sunday (there were no legal holidays), as well the last day of the ten (10) day computation, Appellant’s motion was due no later than Friday, August 18, 2006, which was neither a legal holiday, nor a day in which the clerk’s office was inaccessible.

Appellant filed her motion on Friday, August 25, 2006, seventeen (17) days after entry of the judgment dismissing her appeal, and seven (7) days after the applicable deadline.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re: Kevin Dean Stone
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Conway v. Palczuk
E.D. North Carolina, 2024
Yormak v. Tardif
M.D. Florida, 2023
Yormak v. Yormak
M.D. Florida, 2023
In re Buckskin Realty Inc.
525 B.R. 4 (E.D. New York, 2015)
In re W.R. Grace & Co.
476 B.R. 114 (D. Delaware, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
362 B.R. 565, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12016, 2007 WL 530031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-baruch-v-island-properties-nyed-2007.