Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00307/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00307-0/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 (BAP)

---

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

- 1 - 11CV307

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WALDEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV307 JLS (POR)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

vs. FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

GREGORY A. AKERS,

Defendant.

David Walden appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order granting judgment in favor of

Gregory A. Akers, Chapter 7 trustee. (Bankr. Ct. Judgment 3–4, ECF No. 1.) After consideration,

the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Walden’s appeal.

In September 2007 Joel Esguerra Forral filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Akers was

appointed Forral’s bankruptcy trustee. In April 2008 Akers sued Walden in bankruptcy court to

avoid and recover transfers Forral made to, or on behalf of, Walden. Akers prevailed on summary

judgment, and the bankruptcy court entered judgment against Walden on November 2, 2009. 

Walden appealed to this Court. (District Court Case No. 09-cv-2564 JLS (POR).) This Court

vacated in part the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment. (Case No. 09-cv-2564 ECF

No. 21.) And the matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the amount of

Forral’s transfers to Union Bank for the benefit of Walden. (Id. at 9.)

This brings the Court to the present appeal. On January 12, 2011, the bankruptcy court

entered an amended judgment against Walden. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure

Case 3:11-cv-00307-JLS-POR Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 11CV307

8002(a), any appeal from the judgment would have had to be filed within fourteen days. Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 8002(a). Walden, however, did not file a notice of appeal until February 8, 2011, long

after the fourteen day period had passed. And because the notice was of appeal was not timely,

this Court is divested of its jurisdiction to consider the matter. See Preblich v. Battley, 181 F.3d

1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Walden argues that the purpose of this current appeal is not to appeal the bankruptcy

court’s judgment entered on January 12, 2011. (Reply 2, ECF No. 14.) Rather, the appeal is to

“move the court to continue the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court which began July 2, 2010. (Id.) 

Walden’s reasons notwithstanding, this matter is before the Court as an appeal from the

bankruptcy court’s January 12, 2011 amended judgment. And as noted before, this Court is

divested of its jurisdiction to consider the matter because of Walden’s untimely notice of appeal. 

Walden’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00307-JLS-POR Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 2