Ben Pourbabai v. John Fitzgerald, III ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2047
In re: BEN POURBABAI,
Debtor.
----------------------------------------
BEN POURBABAI,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
JOHN P. FITZGERALD, III,
Trustee - Appellee,
and
JANET MARIE MEIBURGER, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Trustee.
No. 19-2206
In re: BEN POURBABAI,
Debtor.
----------------------------------------
BEN POURBABAI,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
JOHN P. FITZGERALD, III,
Trustee - Appellee,
and
JANET MARIE MEIBURGER, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cv-00401-RDA-JFA)
Submitted: July 31, 2020 Decided: August 13, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 19-2047, dismissed; No. 19-2206, affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ben Pourbabai, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Michael Bernstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES TRUSTEE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Ben Pourbabai seeks to appeal district court orders
related to his bankruptcy proceeding. First, in No. 19-2206, Pourbabai appeals the district
court’s order upholding the bankruptcy court’s order converting his Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding to one under Chapter 7, dismissing the case, and remanding to the bankruptcy
court for further proceedings and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. ∗ See Pourbabai v.
Fitzgerald, No. 1:19-cv-00401-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2019; Oct. 16, 2019).
In No. 19-2047, Pourbabai filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal a district court
order denying injunctive relief entered on September 23, 2019. “An appeal permitted by
law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a
notice of appeal,” which, in turn, “must designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being
appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1), (c)(1)(B). “The requirements of [Fed. R. App. P.] 3
are mandatory and jurisdictional.” United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 681 (4th Cir.
2004). Although we have “held that the policy of construing notices of appeal liberally
applies ‘especially’ to pro se filings, [t]his principle does not, however, excuse
noncompliance with the Rule.” Id.∗
The record reflects that the district court intended its order to be a final, appealable
order. We affirm as modified to reflect that the district court’s order affirmed the
bankruptcy court’s conversion order instead of dismissing.
3
The district court’s docket does not contain an order denying injunctive relief on
September 23, 2019. Instead, the court denied injunctive relief on May 28, 2019. The only
order entered on September 23, 2019, was an order permitting the United States Trustee’s
counsel to appear pro hac vice. Pourbabai does not challenge the pro hac vice order or
specify the denial of injunctive relief that he seeks to appeal. Pourbabai’s notice of appeal
therefore fails to comply with Rule 3’s requirements. Accordingly, we grant the United
States Trustee’s motion to dismiss in No. 19-2047, and we deny the Trustee’s motion to
suspend briefing.
We grant Pourbabai’s motions to file corrected versions of his informal brief, first
motion for injunctive relief, and motion contesting the district court’s dismissal order. We
deny Pourbabai’s motions for transcripts at Government’s expense, to disqualify or recuse
Judges Gregory, Rushing, and Traxler, for appointment of counsel, and to appeal the denial
of his motion to dismiss. We deny as moot Pourbabai’s motions to expedite the appeal, all
remaining motions for an injunction pending appeal, and his motions to amend,
supplement, or withdraw his prior motions for injunctive relief. Finally, we deny all other
pending motions filed by Pourbabai.
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.
No. 19-2047, DISMISSED;
No. 19-2206, AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
4