Alan Bartlett v. David Birdsell ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                  NOT FOR PUBLICATION                     FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    APR 13 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: ALAN M. BARTLETT; LUZ                    No.    18-60066
    MARINA BARTLETT-MORAN,
    BAP No. 18-1093
    Debtors,
    ------------------------------                  MEMORANDUM*
    ALAN M. BARTLETT,
    Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID A. BIRDSELL, Chapter 7 Trustee,
    Appellee.
    In re: ALAN M. BARTLETT; LUZ                    No.    18-60067
    MARINA BARTLETT-MORAN,
    BAP No. 18-1096
    Debtors,
    ------------------------------
    ALAN M. BARTLETT,
    Appellant,
    v.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    CITIBANK, SOUTH DAKOTA, N.A.,
    Appellee.
    Appeals from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Taylor, Brand, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Submitted April 7, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Alan M. Barlett appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
    (“BAP”) judgment dismissing as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s
    judgments in two adversary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review de novo. In re Delaney, 
    29 F.3d 516
    , 517-18 (9th Cir. 1994).
    We affirm.
    The BAP properly concluded that Alan’s notices of appeal were untimely.
    See Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(a) (providing that a notice of appeal shall be filed with
    the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days of the date of entry of the judgment, order, or
    decree appealed from); In re Delaney, 
    29 F.3d at 517-18
     (“The provisions of
    Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of appeal
    deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order.”
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    2                                   18-60066
    18-60067
    (internal citation omitted)). We reject as meritless Alan’s contentions that the
    certificates of service of the complaints in the adversary proceedings were invalid.
    See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b) (providing that service in bankruptcy adversary
    proceedings may be made within the United States by first class mail).
    Alan’s motions for oral argument (Docket Entries Nos. 6 and 13) and for
    default judgment (Docket Entry No. 23) are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   18-60066
    18-60067
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-60066

Filed Date: 4/13/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/13/2020