In Re: Soundview Elite Ltd. (Fletcher v. Harrington)

Second Circuit

In Re: Soundview Elite Ltd. (Fletcher v. Harrington)

597 F. App'x 663

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2015

Docket14-1642

StatusUnpublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 597 F. App'x 663 (In Re: Soundview Elite Ltd. (Fletcher v. Harrington)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Soundview Elite Ltd. (Fletcher v. Harrington), 597 F. App'x 663 (2d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Alphonse Fletcher, Jr., and George E. Ladner, pro se, appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely their appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“When reviewing a district court’s determination of its subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error *389 and legal conclusions de novo.” McCarthy v. Navistar Fin. Corp. (In re Vogel Van & Storage, Inc.), 59 F.3d 9, 11 (2d Cir.1995). An appeal to the district court from an order of the bankruptcy court must be made within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a)(1). The time for electronic filing ends at midnight in the court’s time zone. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(a)(4)(A). The time limitations in Rule 8002(a) are jurisdictionahand mandatory. Tze Wung Consultants, Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda (In re Indu Craft, Inc.), 749 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir.2014).

Even if we considered all of appellants’ arguments, and even if we generously construed appellants’ email as a motion for an extension, the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appellants did not show excusable neglect. Appellants’ failure to follow a clear filing deadline as a result of unfamiliarity with federal procedure does not constitute excusable neglect. See United States v. Hooper, 43 F.3d 26, 29 (2d Cir.1994). Appellants also argue that opposing counsel did not act in good faith, but opposing counsel had no obligation to inform appellants of the deadline for a request for an extension during the parties’ February 25, 2014 hearing before the Bankruptcy Court.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Alphonse Fletcher, Jr., and George E. Ladner, pro se, appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely their appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“When reviewing a district court’s determination of its subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error *389 and legal conclusions de novo.” McCarthy v. Navistar Fin. Corp. (In re Vogel Van & Storage, Inc.), 59 F.3d 9, 11 (2d Cir.1995). An appeal to the district court from an order of the bankruptcy court must be made within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a)(1). The time for electronic filing ends at midnight in the court’s time zone. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(a)(4)(A). The time limitations in Rule 8002(a) are jurisdictionahand mandatory. Tze Wung Consultants, Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda (In re Indu Craft, Inc.), 749 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir.2014).

Even if we considered all of appellants’ arguments, and even if we generously construed appellants’ email as a motion for an extension, the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appellants did not show excusable neglect. Appellants’ failure to follow a clear filing deadline as a result of unfamiliarity with federal procedure does not constitute excusable neglect. See United States v. Hooper, 43 F.3d 26, 29 (2d Cir.1994). Appellants also argue that opposing counsel did not act in good faith, but opposing counsel had no obligation to inform appellants of the deadline for a request for an extension during the parties’ February 25, 2014 hearing before the Bankruptcy Court.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 F. App'x 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-soundview-elite-ltd-fletcher-v-harrington-ca2-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack