Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01390/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01390-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Maaskant
Appellant
Kari Ann Peck
In Re

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

KARI ANN PECK,

 Debtor.

District Court Case No:

1:05-CV-1390 OWW 

Bankruptcy Case No.

01-11815-B-7

Adversary Proceeding No.

01-1125-D

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

DISMISSAL OF APPEAL AND

RELATED FILINGS (DOCS. 13,

14, 15 & 16)

ADRIAN MAASKANT 

 Plaintiff/Appellant,

 v. 

KARI ANN PECK, 

 Defendant/Appellee.

On September 30, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court awarded damages

to Plaintiff/Appellant Adrian Maaskant (“Maaskant”). Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) 8002(a), Maaskant

had ten (10) days to file a notice of appeal of the Judgement

with the Clerk of Court, making any such notice due on October

11, 2005. (See Bankruptcy Court’s March 30, 2006 Order.) That

deadline passed without Maaskant filing any documents. One day

later, on October 12, 2005, Maaskant filed a motion to extend

time to file a notice of appeal. (Id. at 2.) That motion was

denied by the Bankruptcy Court on October 14, 2005. The

Bankruptcy Court reasoned:

Case 1:05-cv-01390-OWW Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 5
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

As plaintiff has previously filed a notice of appeal,

he is no stranger as to either the requirements for

doing so nor the relatively simply amount of paperwork

involved having done so on a prior occasion. The proof

of service of the motion...shows that the subject

motion was served on October 7, 2005, some four days

before the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. 

The filing of a notice of appeal would have involved

far less work than the filing of a the motion. 

Plaintiff’s view is that the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure must all be modified to suit his

individual needs. Plaintiff has not met his burden of

showing that a notice of appeal could not have been

timely filed or that excusable neglect exists that

would allow an extension of time. 

(Bankruptcy Court’s October 14, 2005 Order, at 1-2.) 

Again, Under FRBP 8002(a), Maaskant had ten (10) days, or

until October 24, 2005, to file a notice of appeal from the

October 14, 2005 order. He failed to do so within the ten day

period. Pursuant to FRBP 8002(c)(2), Plaintiff had twenty

additional days to file a motion to extend time to file a notice

of appeal from the October 14, 2005. Any such motion could only

have been granted upon a showing of excusable neglect. 

Specifically, Maaskant would have had to demonstrate why he

failed to timely file a notice of appeal between October 14, 2005

and October 24, 2005. Instead, on October 25, 2005, Maaskant

filed a fifty-one page document entitled “Petition for Writ/

Notice of Appeal of Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend

Time for Filing Notice of Appeal Filed October 14, 2005 [and]

Notice of Appeal of Judgment Filed September 30, 3005.” That

motion was accepted for filing by the Clerk of Court. Although

this document was filed within the additional twenty day window,

it did not provide any basis for a finding of excusable neglect

with respect to Maaskant’s failure to timely file a notice of

appeal between October 14, 2005 and October 24, 2005. It solely

focused on explaining his earlier failure to timely file an

Case 1:05-cv-01390-OWW Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 5
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

appeal from the September 30, 2005 judgment. Accordingly, in its

March 30, 2006 order, the Bankruptcy Court found that the

district court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because

Maaskant had failed to timely file a notice of appeal from the

October 14, 2005 and had failed to timely and properly request an

extension of time to do so. 

On April 10, 2006, the district court ordered this case

closed, affirming the March 30, 2006 Order of the Bankruptcy

Court. (Doc. 11.) That district court order stated in its

entirety:

Before the Court is the March 30, 2006, Order of the

Bankruptcy Court dismissing the appeal in this case

pursuant to the authority of Williams v. EMC Mortgage

Corp. (In re Williams), 216 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.

2000).

The Bankruptcy Judge has correctly analyzed the law

that provides that under Federal R. Bank. P. 8002 there

is no provision for the reopening of time to file an

appeal when a party does not receive notice of an entry

of judgment or order. Further, Fed. R. Bank. P. 9022(a)

provides that: “Lack of notice of the entry [of a

judgment or order] does not effect the time to appeal

or relieve or authorize the Court to relieve a party

for failure to appeal within the time allowed except as

permitted in Rule 8002.” In re Williams, at p. 1298,

fn.4; citing, In re Longardner & Assocs., Inc., 855

F.2d 455, 464 (7th Cir. 1988). As recognized by the

United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit

“[T]he provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are

jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of

appeal deprives the Appellate Court of jurisdiction to

review the Bankruptcy Court’s order.” Saunders v. Band

Plus Mortgage Corp. (In re Saunders), 31 F.3d 767, 767.

As this case has properly been ordered dismissed by the

March 30, 2006, order of United States Bankruptcy Judge

Brett Dorian, the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to close

District Court Case No. 1:05-cv-1390 OWW.

(Id.) 

On the same day the district court entered its order, April

10, 2006, Maskaant filed an “objection to the trial court’s order

dismissing appeal and motion to reverse.” (Docs. 13 & 14.) 

Case 1:05-cv-01390-OWW Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Maaskant subsequently filed a “motion requesting [that the]

district court view [his] earlier objection to trial court’s

order dismissing appeal and motion to reverse as motion to

reconsider dismissal of appeal in district court” (Doc. 15, filed

Apr. 25, 2006), along with an “amendment to [the] motion to

reconsider dismissal of appeal...” (Doc. 16, filed May 2, 2006). 

Essentially, Maaskant argues in his various filings that he

did demonstrate the required elements of excusable neglect,

noting in particular that his October 24, 2005 filing offered

evidence that he was preoccupied with a family crisis during the

relevant time period. Maaskant correctly points out that

attached to his October 24, 2005 filing was the declaration of

his sister, Toosje Maaskant, in which his sister explains that

their father broke his hip on September 19, 2005 and underwent

hip replacement surgery the following day. Toosje Maaskant

further stated that the family “has been advised by [the] doctor

that there is a real possibility that [their father] will not

recover.” (T. Maaskant Decl. at ¶2.) But, although this

declaration somewhat explains why Maaskant may have failed to

timely file the initial notice of appeal from the September 20,

2005 order, given the proximity of the filing date to their

father’s accident, none of the documents attached to the October

24, 2005 filing explain why Maaskant failed to timely file a

notice of appeal from the October 14, 2005 order. 

In more recent filings before the district court, Maaskant

now indicates that his father passed away on October 31, 2005. 

(See Doc. 16 at2.) But, this new information does noes not

explain why Maaskant failed to timely file either a notice of

appeal from the October 14, 2005 and failed to timely request an

Case 1:05-cv-01390-OWW Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Maaskant cites Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384, 387 1

(1964) for the proposition that an appeals court can consider an

appellant’s argument on the merits even thought the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. (Doc. 16, at 4-5.) But, Thompson

is distinguishable. In Thompson, a Canadian national filed a

petition for naturalization, which was denied on the merits by

the district court. Twelve days later, petitioner served notice

on the INS that he would move the district court for various

forms of post-trial relief, including a new trial. The

government raised no objection to the timeliness the post-trial

motions, and the district court specifically found that the

motion for a new trial was timely. The district court

subsequently denied the motion. Petitioner filed a notice of

appeal within 60 days of the denial of the post-trial motions but

not within 60 days of the original entry of judgment. The Court

of Appeals later found that the post trial motions were untimely

filed and, therefore, that the notice of appeal was untimely,

reasoning that the 60 day window actually began to run upon entry

of the district court’s initial judgment. The United States

Supreme Court reversed, finding that under such “unique

circumstances” the appeal should be deemed timely filed. Id. at

387. Here, the circumstances are very different, primarily

because Maaskant’s initial request for an extension of time was

denied by the trial court, clearly indicating to Maaskant that he

must either accept that denial or timely appeal from it. 

5

extension of time to do so. Accordingly, this court has no

jurisdiction over Maaskant’s appeal and it must be dismissed. 

1

That the Clerk of Court accepted Maaskant’s October 24, 2005

filing and subsequent filings is irrelevant. The Clerk of Court

is not charged with the task of determining whether a particular

filing is proper or whether a particular court has jurisdiction

over a case or appeal. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: 9/6/06

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01390-OWW Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 5 of 5