Lu v. Ravida

First Circuit

Lu v. Ravida

23 F. App'x 22

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 8, 2002

Docket01-1491

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. App'x 22 (Lu v. Ravida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lu v. Ravida, 23 F. App'x 22 (1st Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm. There was no error in the dismissal pursuant to D. Mass. Loc. R. 203(A), as that Rule clearly authorizes dismissal of an appeal in an adversary proceeding where appellant has failed to comply with the mandates of Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8006 and 8001(a). We see no constitutional infirmity in the local rule, as any dismissal under the rule is reviewable by an Article III judge in the district court, and in this instance was first directed by, and then affirmed by, a district judge. The bankruptcy court was not without jurisdiction to enter the order of dismissal, despite the fact that the case was on appeal to this court at the time, since the appeal here was an improper interlocutory one. See United States v. Brooks, 145 F.3d 446, 456 (1st Cir.1998) (lower court “may proceed, notwithstanding the filing of an appeal, if the notice of appeal is defective in some substantial and easily discernible way (if, for example, it is based on an unappealable order)....).”

Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm. There was no error in the dismissal pursuant to D. Mass. Loc. R. 203(A), as that Rule clearly authorizes dismissal of an appeal in an adversary proceeding where appellant has failed to comply with the mandates of Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8006 and 8001(a). We see no constitutional infirmity in the local rule, as any dismissal under the rule is reviewable by an Article III judge in the district court, and in this instance was first directed by, and then affirmed by, a district judge. The bankruptcy court was not without jurisdiction to enter the order of dismissal, despite the fact that the case was on appeal to this court at the time, since the appeal here was an improper interlocutory one. See United States v. Brooks, 145 F.3d 446, 456 (1st Cir.1998) (lower court “may proceed, notwithstanding the filing of an appeal, if the notice of appeal is defective in some substantial and easily discernible way (if, for example, it is based on an unappealable order)....).”

Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. App'x 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lu-v-ravida-ca1-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack