Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00094-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK R. AIELLO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN CONNOLLY IV,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-00094 DFL PAN

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Frank Aiello, proceeding pro se, moves for reconsideration

of the August 5, 2005 dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. Aiello does not dispute that his notice of

appeal was untimely. Instead, he argues that this court should

reconsider its decision because he made a timely motion to extend

the time to file a notice of appeal under Bankruptcy Rule

8002(c). 

Rule 8002(c) permits the court to grant a motion to extend

the time for filing a notice of appeal if: (1) there is a showing

of excusable neglect; and (2) the motion is filed within 20 days

of the expiration of the time for filing the notice of appeal. 

The bankruptcy court issued its judgment on November 8, 2004. 

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DFL Document 27 Filed 09/26/05 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

2

Rule 8002(a) states that Aiello’s time to file the notice of

appeal expired on November 18, 2004. Therefore, he had until

December 8, 2004 to file a motion to extend the time for filing a

notice of appeal. Aiello argues that he filed such a motion on

November 29, 2004, well within the time allowed by Rule 8002(c). 

The document Aiello filed on November 29, 2004 was not a

motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. 

Instead, it was a “Notice of Filing Notice of Appeal.” Not only

does this one-page document fail to serve as a motion to extend

the time to file a notice of appeal, but it is completely devoid

of anything that could be construed as “a showing of excusable

neglect.” Consequently, it fails to meet either requirement of

Rule 8002(c). Because Aiello failed to follow the procedure when

filing his notice of appeal, this court lacked jurisdiction to

consider the merits of the appeal. See In re Souza, 795 F.2d

855, 857 (9th Cir. 1986). The motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/23/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DFL Document 27 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2