Case ID: br_509/html/0114-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "D. BROOKS SMITH, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re MURPENTER LLC, d/b/a Uniglobe Wings Travel Carmen Enterprises, Inc., Appellant.
    No. 13-1234.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Jan. 6, 2014.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
    Edward J. Didonato, Esq., Bruce J. Chasan, Esq., Fox Rothschild, Philadelphia, PA, Ely Goldin, Esq., Fox Rothschild, Blue Bell, PA, for Appellant.
    Before: SMITH, SHWARTZ, and SCI RICA, Circuit Judges.
   JUDGMENT ORDER

D. BROOKS SMITH, Circuit Judge.

This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on January 6, 2014. Carmen Enterprises, Inc. (“Carmen Enterprises”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that granted in part and denied in part Carmen Enterprises’ motion for sanctions against counsel for Murpenter LLC. Carmen Enterprises argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred in imposing monetary sanctions based on Murpenter LLC’s bad faith filing of its bankruptcy petition in an amount less than the amount of sanctions requested by Carmen Enterprises. Carmen Enterprises also argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred in declining to impose sanctions against Murpenter LLC’s counsel based on its response to Carmen Enterprises’ motion for sanctions.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Bankruptcy Court’s legal conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and the imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion. In re Miller, 730 F.3d 198, 203 (3d Cir.2013). For substantially the same reasons as those given by the District Court, we will affirm.

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court entered December 21, 2012, be and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs taxed against Appellant.