Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01599/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01599-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (District or BAP)

---

1

3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

HERMAN LORNES, JR.,

 Debtor.

__________________________________

HERMAN LORNES, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

THOMAS H. BILLINGSLEA, chapter 13 

trustee; DAN MC ALLISTER,

Appellees.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB

ORDER DISMISSING 

BANKRUPTCY APPEAL

[ECF No. 1.]

On August 9, 2017, Appellant Herman Lornes, Jr. (“Appellant”) filed a Notice of 

Appeal purportedly electing to seek the district court’s review and challenging the 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California’s Order Granting Trustee’s 

Case 3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB Document 4 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Motion and Dismissing Case with 180-Day Bar to Re-Filing a further Chapter 13 

bankruptcy plan. (Case No. 3:17-bk-03061, Dkt. No. 26).1 2 

In the instant case, Lornes has purportedly chosen to seek the district court’s 

jurisdiction by checking the form box to “elect to have the appeal heard by the United 

States District Court rather than by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) 

However, this document does not appear to have ever been filed in the bankruptcy court, 

which referred the appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. On August 7, 2017, 

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal and Statement of Election with the bankruptcy court

where he did not elect to have his appeal heard by the United States District Court, 

thereby defaulting to an appeal by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. (Case No. 3:17-bk03061, Dkt. No. 32 at 2). An amended notice of referral to the Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel similarly did not include an election for this Court to hear his appeal. (Case No. 

3:17-bk-03061, Dkt. No. 34 at 2). As a result, the bankruptcy court issued a Notice of 

Referral of Appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, (Case No. 3:17-bk-03061, Dkt. 

No. 33) and a Transmittal Memorandum to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. (Case No. 

3:17-bk-03061, Dkt. No. 43). On August 11, 2017, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

acknowledged the appeal and assigned the case No. SC-17-1227. (Case No. 17-1227, 

ECF No. 1). On August 25, 2017, Appellant filed a Designation of Record and Statement 

of Issues with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. (Case No. 17-1227, ECF No. 6).

Appellant’s Opening Brief in the appeal is due October 2, 2017. (Case No. 17-1227, 

ECF No. 4). 

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review an appeal that is (1) 

simultaneously pending before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and (2) for which the 

Appellant never filed with the bankruptcy court a written election for the district court to 

 

1 This Court previously dismissed Lornes’ appeal of a BAP order for lack of jurisdiction in Case No. 

3:16-cv-02341-GPC-DHB, Dkt. No. 5 and again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in Case No. 3:17-cv00503, Dkt. No. 4.

2 All citations to the record refer to the pagination generated by the CM/ECF system where available.

Case 3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB Document 4 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hear the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) (requiring appellant to elect district court 

jurisdiction at “the time of filing of appeal”); In re Woodman, 698 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th 

Cir. 2012) (finding in a similar simultaneous appeal to the BAP and district court that the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to review bankruptcy court decision where notice of 

appeal to district court was defective). The Tenth Circuit observed that policy 

considerations weighed against simultaneous appeals stating that: “[b]ankruptcy appellate 

panels were designed to provide an alternative, not a supplement, to an appeal to the 

district court. Nothing in the statutory language creating the panels suggests that 

Congress would tolerate the confusion and waste of resources that would result from 

simultaneous appeals of the same bankruptcy-court decision to both the district court and 

a panel.” In re Woodman, 698 F.3d at 1266. Since Appellant unambiguously did not 

elect to have his appeal heard by the district court in the Notice of Appeal filed before the 

bankruptcy court, and has participated in appellate briefing before that court, this Court 

lacks jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s opinion. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Appellant’s appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01599-GPC-DHB Document 4 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3