In Re: Peter Paul Mitrano v. Dennis S. Mitrano

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

In Re: Peter Paul Mitrano

PETER PAUL MITRANO,

Appellant,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-1434-PGB

DENNIS S. MITRANO,

Appellee,

/ ORDER This cause comes before the Court without oral argument upon pro se Appellant Peter Paul Mitrano’s (“Appellant”) brief. (Doc. 25). Pro se Appellee Dennis S. Mitrano (“Appellee”) has failed to file a response. After reviewing the record, this appeal is due to be dismissed I. LEGAL STANDARD This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158. In bankruptcy appeals, the district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its resolution of legal questions de novo. Coady v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P., 588 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). II. DISCUSSION Appellant files this appeal following the resolution of an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court. (See Docs. 2-7, 2-12, 2-14). In this appeal, Appellant argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred by 1) denying his request to have

an Article III judge hear his adversary proceeding and 2) denying his request to present oral argument at the hearing on his claims. (Doc. 7, pp. 1–4). Ultimately, Appellant’s arguments are frivolous. First, while Appellant is entitled to an Article III adjudicator, de novo review on appeal satisfies this requirement. Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 475 (2011)

(“It is the district court that enters final judgment in such cases after reviewing de novo any matter to which a party objects.”); Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. 25, 40 (2014) (“District Court’s de novo review and entry of its own valid final judgment cured any error.”). Appellant has the right to an Article III adjudicator on the merits, not the right to an Article III forum at the outset. Moreover, Appellant withdrew reference of those proceedings to this Court. (See

Doc. 2-31). This Court, and the Eleventh Circuit on appeal, dismissed that withdrawal of reference for lack of prosecution. (See Mitrano v. Mitrano, No. 6:24- mc-20 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026), ECF No. 8; Mitrano v. Mitrano, No. 26-10162- GG (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026)). Next, Appellant was not entitled to make oral argument regarding his

briefing in the Bankruptcy Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) clearly establishes that “[b]y rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.” Appellant does not provide any authority to suggest that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) violates substantive due process, as he claims. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not violate Appellant’s Constitutional rights by prohibiting him from making oral argument. CONCLUSION Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED;: 2. The appeal is DISMISSED; and 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 28, 2026.

Ce / PAUL G. UNITED STATES*DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

1 The Court notes that the record, as supplied by Appellant, does not seem to include the Bankruptcy Court’s final judgment. Selman v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he burden is on the appellant to ensure the record on appeal is complete, and where a failure to discharge that burden prevents us from reviewing the [lower] court's decision we ordinarily will affirm the judgment.”).