Maura Santana V.

Ninth Circuit

Maura Santana V.

670 F. App'x 543

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 2016

Docket13-60006

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 543 (Maura Santana V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maura Santana V., 670 F. App'x 543 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Esperanza Ventus Bada, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing her appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Bada’s appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Bada did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and’ is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Esperanza Ventus Bada, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing her appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Bada’s appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Bada did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and’ is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F. App'x 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maura-santana-v-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack