Paul Merritt v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 25 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL                     No. 18-55646
    PROPERTIES, LTD.,
    D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07861-CJC
    Debtor,
    ______________________________
    MEMORANDUM*
    PAUL MERRITT,
    Appellant,
    v.
    LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL
    PROPERTIES, LTD.; ELISSA D. MILLER,
    Trustee,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 17, 2019**
    Before:      McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Paul Merritt appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as
    untimely his appeal from various orders in Lake Mathews Mineral Properties,
    LTD.’s bankruptcy court proceedings. We review de novo our own jurisdiction.
    Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot
    Springs), 
    339 F.3d 782
    , 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    We lack jurisdiction because Merritt did not file a timely notice of appeal
    from any bankruptcy court order that he sought to appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
    8002(a) (14-day time limit to file notice of appeal); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9022(a)
    (“Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or
    authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed,
    except as permitted in Rule 8002.”); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re: Mouradick),
    
    13 F.3d 326
    , 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (Rule 8002(a)’s time limits are jurisdictional and
    the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction
    to review the bankruptcy court’s order).
    Merritt’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
    DISMISSED.
    2                                     18-55646
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-55646

Filed Date: 4/25/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/25/2019