Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00253/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00253-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John M. Ladner, Terry T. Ladner, 

Appellants, 

vs.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Decision, 

Appellee. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0253-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Appellants' Brief (Doc. # 8) regarding the January 16,

2007, Order Approving Reaffirmation Agreement from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Arizona. The Court has reviewed Appellants' Brief and the record.

Appellants request this Court to "reverse the requirement of the lower court that debtor's legal

counsel must sign every reaffirmation agreement submitted to the court with the limitation

that the certification is made only as of the date of the attorney's signature" (Doc. # 8 at 15).

The Court finds that the proposed issue does not present an Article III justiciable case

or controversy. The Appellants, John Ladner and Terry Ladner ("the Ladners"), do not have

standing to raise the present claim, the issue as presented to the Court suffers from mootness,

and the claim asks the Court to proffer an advisory opinion.

I. STANDING

The aggrieved party must have standing to appropriately invoke the jurisdiction of a

Case 2:07-cv-00253-JAT Document 9 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

federal court. In other words, even in the event of a legitimate claim or injury, the proper

party must bring suit to be heard. Here, based on the facts and arguments as set forth in

Appellants' Brief, the party to whom alleged injury has occurred is not the Ladners, but their

counsel, Mr. Allegrucci (Doc. # 8 at 5-6) ("Ladners' legal counsel filed this appeal for

review"). The Ladners do not allege to have suffered any injury as a result of the bankruptcy

court's order requiring Mr. Allegrucci to sign the reaffirmation agreement. Nor can the

Ladners bring suit on behalf of Mr. Allegrucci, since he is third party for which the Ladners

have no standing. 

II. MOOTNESS

Even if Appellants had standing to sue based on the claim alleged, the argument as

presented in Appellants' Brief is moot. Although Mr. Allegrucci objects to the requirement

that he sign the Ladners' reaffirmation agreement, he did so per the bankruptcy court's order

in the proceedings below. Because Mr. Allegrucci signed the reaffirmation agreement, which

the bankruptcy court subsequently approved, he does not appear to face pending injury (See

Doc. # 4 at 11-12).

III. ADVISORY OPINION 

Finally, Appellants' argument fails to comprehend the reluctant power of judicial

review. Appellants seek prospective relief in future, unknown, unnamed adversary

proceedings which this Court may not provide (Doc. # 8 at 5-6) ("Ladners' legal counsel filed

this appeal for review of the requirement of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge that all

reaffirmation agreements in her court be signed by the debtors' legal counsel...) (emphasis

added). Any opinion rendered by this Court on this issue would result in a hypothetical

future scenario, which may or may not ever occur. 

Based on the foregoing,

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00253-JAT Document 9 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellants' appeal from the bankruptcy court's January 16,

2007, Order Approving Reaffirmation Agreement is DISMISSED.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00253-JAT Document 9 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3