09- 5322- bk

In re S c h e id e lm a n e t al. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U LI N GS B Y SU M M A R Y O R D ER D O N O T H A V E P R ECED ENTI A L EF FEC T. C I TATI O N TO A S U M M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y F EDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PR OCEDUR E 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S COURT ’ S LO C A L R UL E 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN C I T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A DOCUM E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S COURT , A P ART Y M US T CI T E E I T HER T HE FEDER A L A PP E NDI X OR AN ELECTR O N I C DA TAB A SE ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA R TY C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 1 day

of De cembe r, two thousand ten. st PRES ENT: ROBERT D. SACK,

ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circ uit J ud ge s.

___________________________________________ Khalida Sche idelman and Ronald Sche idelman,

Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , -v.- 09-5322-bk Clint on B. H ender son and Renata Hende rson, Defendants-A

ppellee s, Jame s Co lli ns , Trustee.

___________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANTS: Khalida Sche idelman and Ronald Sche idelman, pro s e , Oxford, New Y ork.2

FOR APPEL L EES: Peter A. O rville, Peter A. O rville, P.C., Binghamton, New Y ork.
Appea l from the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of Ne w York (Hurd, J .). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D , AD JU DGED , AND DECREED that th e a

pp e a l is DISMISSE D for lac k of appe llate jurisdiction. Plaintiffs-Appellants Kha lida Scheidelman a nd Ronald Scheidelman, pro s e , appea l from the Dec ember

14, 2009 judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Norther n District of New Y ork (Hurd, J. ) a ff

ir min gtheba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s de nia l of

a mot ion to r e c us e . We a ssume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts a nd the proc edura l history

of the c ase. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), this C ourt has jurisdiction to review“fina l” district court decisions stemming f

rom a ba nkruptcy action. Howe ver, the “district cour t’s own dec ision of an appea l from the bankr

uptcy court is not a fina l decision for pur poses of a ppeal to the c ourt of appea ls unless the order

of the ba nkruptcy court wa s final.” In re Fugazy Express, I

nc ., 982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir. 1992). Since the f inality require ment is jurisdictional, thi s Court must consider the issue sua sponte, even if it is not raised by the par ties. In re Lomas Fin. Corp. , 932 F.2d 147, 150 (2d Cir. 1991). In this case, the A

ppellants appe aled to the district cour t from the bankr

uptcy court’s denial of the ir motion for rec usal. The de nial of a motion for r ecusa l ordinarily is not a final order
. See U

nited States v. Y

onkers Bd. of Educ

. , 946 F.2d 180, 183 ( 2d Cir. 1991). Be causethe bankruptc y

court’s order w as not final and the re w as not a judgment on the merits at the time of the re cusal motion, this C ourt lacks jurisdiction to revie w the district cour t’s judgme nt affir

ming3 SA O-RH that order
. See I

n re Lomas Fin. Corp. , 9 32 F .2 d at 15 0 ( “ Th e reis t hu s n o c ourt

of a pp e a ls jurisdiction over non-f

inal order s orig inating in the ba nkruptcy court.” ); c

f. D ub no ff v . G old ste in , 385 F.2d 717, 723 ( 2d Cir. 1967) (findingCourt lacked jurisdiction over appe al from ba nkruptcy court’s de nial of motion to recuse ). Al th o u ghth i s C o urtm ay

co n s tru e anap p ea l fr o ma n o n -f i n al o rd er as a p et i t i o ns ee k i n g a writ of mandamus, se eCar ibb e an Tra ding &Fi d. Cor p. v . Ni ge ria n Na t’ l Pe tro le um Cor p ., 948 F.2d 111, 115 ( 2d Cir. 1991) (“We ha ve ofte n deeme d it appropriate to treat a n appea l dismi ssed for lac k of jurisdiction as a pe tition for a writ of manda mus.”), the Sche idelmans have not demonstrated that the lower c ourt’s re fusal to re cuse w as a c lear and indisputable abuse of discretion, see I

n re Basciano , 542 F.3d 950, 955- 56 (2d Cir. 2008). The y arethere fore not
e nti tle d to theiss ua

nc e of thewrit. Ac c or din g ly , th e a

pp e a l is DI SM ISSED
. F OR TH E CO URT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk