D'Alfonso v. D'Alfonso , 539 F. App'x 729 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              AUG 21 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: ARNALDO D’ALFONSO and                     No. 11-60046
    LIBUSA D’ALFONSO,
    BAP No. 11-1147
    Debtors,
    MEMORANDUM *
    LUISA BERISTAIN,
    Appellant,
    v.
    ARNALDO D’ALFONSO; et al.,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Dunn, Kirscher, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Submitted August 14, 2013 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Luisa Beristain appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
    order dismissing her appeal as untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
    Procedure 8002(a). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). We review de
    novo, Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 
    483 F.3d 933
    , 938 (9th Cir.
    2007), and we affirm.
    The BAP properly dismissed the appeal because Beristain filed her notice of
    appeal more than fourteen days after entry of the bankruptcy court’s order denying
    her motion for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
    8002(a) & (c) (establishing 14-day time period for filing a notice of appeal from a
    bankruptcy court decision and explaining that after the 14-day time period for
    filing a notice of appeal has elapsed, a bankruptcy judge may extend the time upon
    written motion showing excusable neglect); In re Wiersma, 
    483 F.3d at 938
     (“The
    timely appeal requirement is jurisdictional.”); see also Keybar Invs., Inc. v. Cahn
    (In re Cahn), 
    188 B.R. 627
    , 632 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (“It is well-settled that failure
    to receive notice of entry of judgment or order is not an excuse for an untimely
    appeal because it is the party’s affirmative duty to monitor the dockets.”).
    Beristain’s arguments about impediments to filing the notice of appeal are
    unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   11-60046
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-60046

Citation Numbers: 539 Fed. Appx. 729, 539 F. App'x 729

Judges: Graber, Paez, Schroeder

Filed Date: 8/21/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023