Al-Omar v. Exco Services ( 2022 )

Case: 21-20353 Document: 00516181055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 26, 2022
No. 21-20353 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
In the Matter of: Exco Services, Incorporated
Debtor,
Nkrumah Al-Omar; Eunice Hall,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
EXCO Services, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-3058
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-20353 Document: 00516181055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2022
No. 21-20353
Appellants Nkrumah Al-Omar and Eunice Hall appeal pro se the
district court’s dismissal of their bankruptcy appeal for failure to file an
appellate brief as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018(a).
Finding that we lack jurisdiction, we DISMISS the appeal.
In January 2018, EXCO Services, Inc. voluntarily filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy. The appellants, who hold royalty interests in two Louisiana oil
and gas leases with EXCO, responded by filing claims against EXCO for
unpaid royalties and special damages. In January 2020, the bankruptcy court
entered an order finding that EXCO had made all required royalty payments
but that the appellants were entitled to interest on certain late payments and
to costs associated with representing themselves. The court ordered the
parties “to calculate the interest and fees, and to submit a proposed form of
order that [was] consistent with [its] opinion.”
In August 2020, EXCO submitted a proposed order setting forth its
calculations of the interest and costs owed to the appellants. Before the
bankruptcy court entered its own order, the appellants filed a notice of appeal
from EXCO’s proposed order. 1 The district court docketed their appeal in
November 2020 but then dismissed it six months later, after finding that the
appellants had failed to file an opening brief as required by Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 8018(a). The appellants now appeal that dismissal,
1
After the appellants appealed EXCO’s proposed order, the bankruptcy court
entered a final order adjudicating the amount of interest and costs owed. The appellants
also appealed that order in October 2020, and the district court affirmed. The appellants
then appealed to this court and we affirmed. See In re EXCO Servs., Inc., No. 21-20078,
2021 WL 5985068, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2021) (unpublished). Although we dismiss the
present appeal on jurisdictional grounds, we also note that our decision in the separate
appeal addressing the bankruptcy court’s final order renders the appellants’ appeal in this
case moot. See id.2
Case: 21-20353 Document: 00516181055 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2022
No. 21-20353
contending “that a brief was sent to the [d]istrict [c]ourt on two separate
occasions.”
“Before reviewing the merits of any dispute, we have a duty, sua
sponte, to determine whether we have appellate jurisdiction over the matter.”
Pemberton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 1993).
We have held that “[w]hen the district court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal
from a bankruptcy court, this [c]ourt lacks jurisdiction as well.” In re
Berman-Smith, 737 F.3d 997, 1003 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Stangel, 219
F.3d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 2000)).
The district court has “jurisdiction to hear appeals . . . from final
judgments, orders, and decrees . . . of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and
proceedings” before the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The
appellants did not appeal from a bankruptcy court’s final judgment, order, or
decree; they appealed from a proposed order that was submitted by EXCO
but never actually entered by the bankruptcy court. The district court thus
lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellants’ bankruptcy appeal. See id. Because
the district court lacked jurisdiction, this court lacks jurisdiction as well. See
Berman-Smith, 737 F.3d at 1003.
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
3