James Coppedge v. , 619 F. App'x 57 ( 2015 )

CLD-015 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1382
___________
IN RE: JAMES COPPEDGE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-01374)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________________________________
Submitted on Motion for Summary Affirmance
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 16, 2015
Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 28, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant James Coppedge appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of
his appeal from an order entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Because
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Coppedge’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will grant Trustee Michael B.
Joseph’s (“Trustee”) motion to summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
I.
In 2013, Coppedge filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware. See In re Coppedge, Bankr. Case No. 13-11098
(Bankr. D. Del. 2013). Upon the Trustee’s motion, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order dismissing the case on June 27, 2013. Coppedge’s appeal from that order was
dated July 15, 2013, and filed in the Bankruptcy Court on July 17, 2013. The notice of
appeal was transmitted to the District Court on August 1, 2013.
The Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the appeal was untimely filed. Coppedge did not oppose the motion to dismiss,
and instead filed an “affidavit of default” and petitions to “affirm settlements” and to
affirm “the debt discharge.” On January 15, 2015, the District Court agreed that
Coppedge’s appeal was untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a),
and dismissed his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Coppedge timely appealed to this Court, and the Trustee has filed a motion for
summary action, which Coppedge opposes.
II.
We have jurisdiction over the District Court’s final decision as to Coppedge’s
appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We exercise de novo review
2
over the question of subject matter jurisdiction. Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox
Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010).
The District Court properly determined that it did not have jurisdiction over
Coppedge’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. Appeals from bankruptcy courts must be
brought “in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules.” 28 U.S.C. §
158(c)(2). And Rule 8002(a)(1) states that a notice of appeal must be filed within 14
days of the entry of a bankruptcy court’s order. We have held that this 14-day time limit
is mandatory and jurisdictional. In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 110, 113 (3d Cir. 2011).
In this case, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing Coppedge’s case on
June 27, 2013. Accordingly, under Rule 8002(a)(1), Coppedge’s notice of appeal was
due on July 11, 2013.1 Coppedge dated his notice of appeal July 15, 2013, and the
Bankruptcy Court received it on July 17th. Coppedge also did not request an extension
of time to appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(c). Thus, as the District Court determined,
his notice of appeal was untimely and it lacked jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy
Court’s order. See In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 110; S’holders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109
F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1997). Further, because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over
the case, it also properly denied as moot Coppedge’s petition to affirm settlements and
1
The District Court stated that the notice of appeal was due on July 12, 2015. This error
is harmless, as it did not affect the outcome of the case. See McQueeney v. Wilmington
Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 917, 924-28 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that court can find errors
harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the
case).
3
request for default. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s January 15, 2015
order.2
Coppedge’s motion to stay the bankruptcy proceedings and US Bank National
Association’s motion to intervene to oppose the motion to stay the bankruptcy
proceedings are denied as moot.
2
Because we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s determination regarding the
appeal’s untimeliness, we need not consider the other bases for its decision or
Coppedge’s arguments concerning the District Court’s denial of his various motions.
4