Olick v. Commercial State Bank , 176 Fed. Appx. 452 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50583
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: STEPHEN CRAIG CONLEY
Debtor
-----------------------------------------------
Thomas W. Olick,
Appellant,
versus
Commercial State Bank; Stephen C. Conley,
Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CV-108
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellant, Thomas Olick, appeals from the judgment of the
District Court in this dispute over the ownership and control of a
piece of oil producing property located in Texas. Appellant asserts
that the Bankruptcy Court improperly denied his motion to amend his
complaint under Bankruptcy Rule 7015, which adopts F.R.C.P. Rule
15. Matter of Schwager, 121 F.3d 177, 186 (1997). The appellant
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-50583
-2-
argues that the denial of this motion without comment or
explanation of the basis for denial was an abuse of discretion.
However, the appellant has not provided a record of the hearing at
which the motion was denied for this court to review and has made
inconsistent statements on this point, arguing before the District
Court that “the lower court opined that it would not grant
Appellant’s B.R. 7015 Motion because doing so might delay trial
against the Appellees.” Additionally, while an explanation of the
reasons for a denial of a motion to amend is strongly preferred, it
is not an abuse of discretion where the reasons for denial are
apparent. Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. and Indem. Co., 376
F.3d 420, 426-427 (5th Cir. 2004). Here, the motion to amend the
complaint adding new defendants was made five months after the
complaint was filed, requested to plead different theories against
different parties, and was thus properly denied. Id. at 427-28.
The appellant further contends that default judgments by a
Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court possessed res judicata status as to
issues in this case. Res judicata is inapplicable to bankruptcy
nondischargeability proceedings. In re Pancake, 106 F.3d 1242, 1244
(5th Cir. 1997).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.