Kevin Huennekens v. Karl Malloy

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 25-1695
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1695 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1695

KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KARL LINARD MALLOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:24-cv-00779-MHL)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karl Linard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1695 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Karl Linard Malloy appeals the district court’s order dismissing the bankruptcy

judge as an appellee and dismissing Malloy’s appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders

quashing subpoenas and imposing sanctions. The district court dismissed the appeals

because, upon dismissal of the bankruptcy judge, there remained no other appellee.

Rule 8003(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure requires that a notice of

appeal from a bankruptcy court order substantially comply with official Form 417A, and

Form 417A includes a section for listing the appellees. However, a failure of complete

compliance with this rule is not jurisdictional. See Fadayiro v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co.,

371 F.3d 920, 922-23 (7th Cir. 2004); Smith v. Porter, 416 B.R. 264, 268 (E.D. Va. 2009)

(holding that failure to identify parties in notice of appeal did not justify dismissal where

there was no confusion as to the parties to the appeal or the order from which the appeal

was taken). Because Malloy’s notice of appeal substantially complied with Form 417A

and his notice of appeal clearly stated that he intended to appeal from four orders quashing

subpoenas and imposing sanctions, we conclude that dismissal of the appeal was not

warranted upon the dismissal of the named appellee.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings,

expressing no opinion as to the ultimate disposition of Malloy’s appeal from the bankruptcy

court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED