Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-05-00123/USCOURTS-ca10-05-00123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 0
Nature of Suit: other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE DAVID KEY formerly doing

business as PMM Inc., formerly doing

business as H J Disaster Restoration

LLC, formerly doing business as

Sunstar Super Systems Inc., formerly

doing business as PMM Building

Services LLC, formerly doing business

as Wichita Stealth LLC,

Debtor.

BAP No. KS-05-123

HAMADI BALDEH, doing business as

Platinum Professional Cleaners,

Appellant,

Bankr. No. 05-10824

 Chapter 7

v. ORDER

CARL B. DAVIS, Trustee,

Appellee.

January 30, 2006

Before McFEELEY, Chief Judge, BOHANON, and McNIFF, Bankruptcy Judges.

The matter before the Court is the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing and to

Vacate Order of Dismissal (“Motion”), filed January 13, 2006, by Hamadi Baldeh,

doing business as Platinum Professional Cleaners (“Baldeh”), proceeding pro se. 

Appellee Carl B. Davis has not filed a response to the Motion.

Background

Baldeh attempts to appeal several orders entered by the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas. First, on July 28, 2005, the

bankruptcy court entered an order allowing the Debtor to sell real estate by

private treaty (“Sale Order”). On August 15, 2005, Baldeh filed a motion for

reconsideration (bankruptcy court docket # 87), a motion for stay pending appeal

BAP Appeal No. 05-123 Docket No. 6 Filed: 01/30/2006 Page: 1 of 4
-2-

(# 88), and a notice of appeal (# 89). The motions were denied by order entered

August 18, 2005 (# 92). The notice of appeal, assigned BAP number KS-05-076,

was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Also on August 18, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing

an adversary proceeding Baldeh had filed to assert the nondischargeability of the

Debtor’s debt to him (“Dismissal Order”). Baldeh filed a motion to vacate the

dismissal on September 21, 2005, which the bankruptcy court denied by order

dated November 15, 2005, but entered on the docket on November 16, 2005.

On September 19, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging

the Debtor (“Discharge Order”). On September 30, 2005, Baldeh filed a motion

for stay of the order (# 107); a paper described on the docket as “Notice of

Intention to Petition the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit for

Judicial Review of Order of Discharge as May Be Applicable to this Creditor”

(# 108); a “Petition for Certification of Order of Discharge for Appellate Review”

(# 109); and a motion to vacate the order (# 110). The motions were denied by

order dated November 15, 2005, but entered November 16, 2005 (# 120). It does

not appear that any action was taken on docket numbers 108 and 109. Also on

November 16, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying Baldeh’s

motion for an evidentiary hearing (# 121).

On December 13, 2005, Baldeh filed an “Amended Notice of Appeal,”

which lists (1) the Discharge Order, (2) the Dismissal Order, (3) the order

denying his motion to vacate the Dismissal Order, and (4) the Sale Order. In the

above-captioned case, this Court entered an Order to Show Cause Why Appeal

Should Not Be Considered for Dismissal as Untimely (“OSC”) and a Notice of

Deficiency and Order to Show Cause, noting that Baldeh had not paid the

applicable filing and docketing fees (“NOD”). The NOD required a response

within ten days. On January 4, 2006, this Court dismissed the appeal for failure

to respond to the NOD. On January 13, 2006, Baldeh filed a response to the

BAP Appeal No. 05-123 Docket No. 6 Filed: 01/30/2006 Page: 2 of 4
-3-

NOD, a response to the OSC, and the Motion.

Discussion

The Motion requests that the dismissal for failure to prosecute be vacated. 

The filing and docketing fees have now been paid, and the Court concludes that

the Motion should be granted in part. The dismissal will be vacated, and the

appeal will be reopened to consider Baldeh’s response to the OSC.

This Court had issued the OSC because it appeared that Baldeh’s notice of

appeal was not timely filed. Rule 8002(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within ten days after

entry of the order being appealed. The time to appeal the Sale Order, entered July

28, 2005, expired August 8, 2005. The time to appeal the Dismissal Order,

entered August 18, 2005, expired August 29, 2005. The time to appeal the

Discharge Order, entered September 19, 2005, expired September 29, 2005. 

Baldeh did not file a notice of appeal within the applicable deadlines.

Baldeh alleges that his motions for rehearing extended the time for filing a

notice of appeal. Rule 8002(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

provides that certain timely-filed motions toll the time period for filing a notice of

appeal. In order to be considered timely filed, Baldeh’s motions needed to have

been filed within ten days after the orders were entered. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

7052 (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, which establishes a 10-day time limit);

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, which establishes a 10-

day time limit); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(4) (establishing a 10-day time limit for

motions filed under Rule 9024, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 60). In this

case, Baldeh’s motions were not timely filed. The motions and notice of appeal

regarding the Sale Order were filed August 15, 2005, seven days after the

expiration of the ten-day period. The motion regarding the Dismissal Order was

filed September 21, 2005, twenty-three days after the expiration of the ten-day

period. The Motions and other pleadings regarding the Discharge Order were

BAP Appeal No. 05-123 Docket No. 6 Filed: 01/30/2006 Page: 3 of 4
-4-

filed September 30, 2005, one day after the expiration of the ten-day period.

Additionally, the Court notes that the Notice of Appeal was not filed within

ten days after entry of any of the orders denying his motions for reconsideration. 

The last orders were entered November 16, 2005. The ten-day time period

expired November 28, 2005. The Notice of Appeal was filed December 13, 2005,

fifteen days too late.

Absent a timely-filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. 

Deyhimy v. Rupp (In re Herwit), 970 F.2d 709, 710 (10th Cir. 1992); Furst v.

Furst (In re Furst), 206 B.R. 979, 980 (10th Cir. BAP 1997). Because Baldeh did

not timely file a notice of appeal of any of the above-listed orders, this appeal

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Order of Dismissal, entered January 4, 2006, is VACATED, and

this appeal is reopened in order to allow consideration of Baldeh’s

response to this Court’s OSC.

2. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this appeal is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

For the Panel:

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 05-123 Docket No. 6 Filed: 01/30/2006 Page: 4 of 4