Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0663-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re SOUNDVIEW ELITE LTD., Debtor, Alphonse Fletcher, Jr., George E. Ladner, Appellants, v. William K. Harrington, Peter Anderson, as the Joint Official Liquidators of the Limited Debtors, Matthew Wright, as the Joint Official Liquidators of the Limited Debtors, Pasig Ltd., Appellees.
    No. 14-1642.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 13, 2015.
    Alphonse Fletcher, Jr., San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    George Evan Ladner, Director, Davidson, NC, pro se.
    Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy Director/General Counsel, P. Matthew Sutko, Associate General Counsel, Noah M. Schottenstein, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Trustees, Washington, DC, William K. Harrington, United States Trustee for Region 2, Linda A. Riffidn, Assistant United States Trustee, Richard Morrissey and Andrew Velez-Rivera, Trial Attorneys, Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee, New York, NY, for Appellee Harrington.
    Gary S. Lee, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees Anderson and Wright.
    No appearance, for Appellee Pasig.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Alphonse Fletcher, Jr., and George E. Ladner, pro se, appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely their appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“When reviewing a district court’s determination of its subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” McCarthy v. Navistar Fin. Corp. (In re Vogel Van & Storage, Inc.), 59 F.Bd 9, 11 (2d Cir.1995). An appeal to the district court from an order of the bankruptcy court must be made within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a)(1). The time for electronic filing ends at midnight in the court’s time zone. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(a)(4)(A). The time limitations in Rule 8002(a) are jurisdictional and mandatory. Tze Wung Consultants, Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda (In re Indu Craft, Inc.), 749 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir.2014).

Even if we considered all of appellants’ arguments, and even if we generously construed appellants’ email as a motion for an extension, the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appellants did not show excusable neglect. Appellants’ failure to follow a clear filing deadline as a result of unfamiliarity with federal procedure does not constitute excusable neglect. See United States v. Hooper, 43 F.3d 26, 29 (2d Cir.1994). Appellants also argue that opposing counsel did not act in good faith, but opposing counsel had no obligation to inform appellants of the deadline for a request for an extension during the parties’ February 25, 2014 hearing before the Bankruptcy Court.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.