2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-21-2004 

# In Re: V e ncor Inc P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2670

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" I n Re: V e nc or I nc " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 796. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/796NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 03-2670

IN RE : VE NC OR IN C., E T A L., Debtor

CHAR LES L. ABRAHA MS; ELI-ANNE PHILLIPS-MINKS, Ap pellan ts

v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE I NC. f/k/ a VENCOR I NC.

DAVID BUCKBI NER, Trustee App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the D istrict of Delaw are (D.C. Civi l No. 03-cv- 00004) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 12, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , CO W EN and LA Y* , Circu it Judges

.

(Fil ed April 21, 2004) *Honorable Donald P. Lay , Senior Circuit Judge for t

he Eighth Cir cuit, sitting by designation.2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT

RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge

. Appellant s Charles L. Abrahams and Eli -Ane Phill ips-Minks cha llenge an order of the Dist rict Court granting Appelle e Debtors’ motion t o dismis s an appealof an order of the Bankrupt cy Court

disal lowing proof of cl aims fil ed by t he Appellant s in a bankr uptcy actio n. We wil l a ffirm. Appellant

Phill ips-Minks fi led a qui ta m acti on against

the Debtors in the Dis tri ct C ou rt f or th e S ou th er n D ist ric t o f C ali fo rn ia ( “th e C ali fo rn ia c ou rt” ). S ub se qu en tly, De bto rs file d ba nkr upt cy pe tition s in th e B ank rup tcy Co urt f or th e D istrict of D elaw are. Appellants then filed proofs of claim based upon the allegations of the Phil lips-Minks qui ta m actio n an d fe es in cur red by A bra ham s du ring his re pre sen tatio n of Ph illips- M ink s. As part of t

he Debtors’ proposed Plan of Reorganization, t he Debtors and t

he government sett led a number of qui

ta m action s, includ ing the one filed by A ppella nts. A ppella nts object ed to the proposed Plan of Reorganization. On March 19, 2001, the Bankrupt cy Court issued an order confirming the Plan, with the settlement of the Appellant’s qui tam acti on effective to the extent that t he government had aut

horit y t o sett le the qui tam acti on, noting that t

he Califor

nia court could det ermine whether the government

had the authori ty to set tle t he qui ta m actio n. A ppe llant s did not app eal th is ord er. The government moved to i ntervene in the qui tam actio n in the C alifo rnia cou rt.3

The court al lowed the gover nment to i ntervene and, subs equentl y, found that the govern ment ha d the autho rity to settle the action. Ap pellants did not ap peal this order. Debtors then filed a request with the Bankruptcy Court to di sallow Appellants’ pr oof s of cl ai m. T he Bankr

upt cy Cour t i ss uedan o rd erdi sa ll owi ng t he p ro ofs of c la im, based on that

court’ s order c onfirming t he Plan and the Califor

nia court ’s order confirmi ng the government ’s authorit y t o sett le the qui tam acti on. Appell ants di d appeal this ord er, and filed a De signa tion of the C onten ts for In clusion in the R ecord , pursu ant to Rule 8006 of the Feder al Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure. This Designation li sted se ven issues for appeal . Also pur suant t o Rule 8006, t he Appellees file d a Counter Designation in response to the Appellants’ Designation, but did not file a cross appeal. Despite this, however, the Appellant s fil ed a Correct ed Designati on of Record and Clari ficat ion of Issues on Appeal, which l ist ed a tot al of 67 i ssues for appeal, seven of which had been include d in the f

irst Designati on. Debtors subsequent ly file d a motion wit

h the Dist

rict Court to di smiss t

he appeal and/or strike the Correcte d Designati on. The Court gr anted the motion. Appellants now appeal from the D istri ct Court’s order granti ng Debtors’

mo tion to d ismiss th e app eal. The Bankruptcy

Court had jurisdi ction to enter t he order di sall owing the proofs of clai m pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 157. The Distri ct Court ha d appell ate j urisdi ction pur suant to 2 8 U .S.C . § 15 8(a ). W e ha ve a ppe llate ju risdi ction pur sua nt to 28 U .S.C . § 12 91. Appellant s rai se iss ues in r elat ion to ( 1) the or der of the Califor nia court , (2) the Bankruptcy

Court’s order confi rming the Pl an of Reorganization, and (3) the Correct ed4

Designati on. With r espect to the order of the Cali fornia c ourt, Appellant s contes t (a) the court’ s deter

minati on that t

he government had t

he authority

to settle t

he qui tam acti on, (b) the court’ s juri sdict ion and impar tial ity , and (c) the court ’s “vi olati on” of the automati c stay . However, we need not ana lyze thi s set of issues , as we do not have juri sdict ion to cons ider either t he merit s of the Cal iforni a court’ s order or its juri sdict ion to issue such an or der. H ad A ppella nts w ished to app eal the orde r, the C ourt o f A ppea ls for the N inth Cir cuit w as th e pr ope r co urt w ith w hich to lo dge that a ppe al. See 28 U. S. C. § 1294 (“appeal s from revi ewable decis ions of t he dist rict and territorial c ourts s hall be taken t o the court s of appeal s . . . from a di stri ct court of the Unit ed State s to the court of app eals for the c ircu it em bra cing the d istrict . . .”). We reach a simil ar concl usion with respect to the s everalissues rais ed regarding the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the Plan of Reorganization. Appellants contest (a) t he Bankruptcy

Court’s a

pplication of 31 U.S. C. § 3730(c)( 3), (b) the Bankruptcy Court’s a uthori ty to leave the i ssue of the government’ s author ity to settle t

he qui tam actio n to the C alifo rnia cou rt, (c) th e B ank rup tcy Co urt’s app licatio n of 28 U .S.C . § 157(d), and (d) t

he Bankruptcy

Court’s de termination t hat the sett lement was fair and adequate. We conclude that we do not have jur isdi ction to consider issues relat ed to the confirmatio n ord er, as A ppella nts faile d to ap peal th at orde r. Had Ap pellan ts wish ed to revoke o r appeal the o rder of co nfirmation, they shou ld have tak en action to d o so before the a ppl icab le de adlin e. See 11 U .S.C. § 114 4 (2004 ) ( providi ng that a court may

revoke an order of conf

irmati on if a moti on is made to do s o within 180 day s after the dat e of5

entry of th e ord er, “if an d on ly if such o rder w as pro cured by fraud ”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 (provi ding that

a notic e of appeal must be fil ed with the Distri ct Court or Bank ruptcy App ellate Panel “w ithin 10 days of the d ate of entry of the jud gmen t, order, or decree appealed fr om”). We will not allow Appell ants t o avoid the consequences of their fail ure by

considering is sues rel ated t o the confi rmation order on appealfrom an

or der di sa ll owi ng p ro ofs of c la im. Finally, Appellant s asser t that the Dist rict Court err ed in granting Debtors ’ motion to strike t

he Correct ed Designati on. Under FederalRule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006, there i s no provis ion for a “ Correcte d” Designati on. An appell ant must fi le a “designation of the items to be included in the record on appe al and a st atement of t he issues to be pre sented” w ithin 10 days of filing a n otice appea l of a Ba nkruptcy Co urt decisi on. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006. Within 10 day s of the fi ling of t his st atement, the appell ee must fi le a cr oss-des ignati on of addit ional items to be included i n the rec ord, and , if the app ellee wis hes to cr oss app eal, a state me nt o f issu es. Id. If the a ppelle e fil es
a c ro ss -a pp ea l, “ a c ro ss ap pe lle e m ay, w ith in 10 da ys o f s er vi ce of th e c ro ss ap pe lla nt 's stat ement, fi le and ser

ve on the cr oss appel lant a designation of addi tionalitems to be include d in the record.” Id. Thus, the appell ant is only permitted to fi le an addi tional designation if the appell ee has filed a cross appeal. Here, Appellees did not fi le a cross appeal, and there fore Appell ants were not permitted to fi le the Correcte d Designati on of Rec ord a nd C larificatio n of Issues on A ppea l. Further more, as t

he Distr ict Court

notes, even if Appell ants had bee n permitted by6

the r ule to file a n ad ditio nal d esig natio n, th ey file d th e C orre cted De sign ation too late. Rule 8006 plai nly

stat es that

the cros s appell ee must fi le it s designation of a dditi onal items wit hin 10 day s of servi ce of the cross appel lant’ s statement. Appell ants fi led the Co rrected De signa tion on De cem ber 2 2, 200 2, twe nty days afte r the A ppelle es filed their Counter Designation on December 2, 2002. Therefore, even if a cor recte d designation

we re p erm itted und er R ule 8 006 , Ap pella nts e xce ede d th e tim e lim itatio n fo r do ing so. As the District Court

explai ned, Appell ants’ counsel’ s excuses f or not fi ling on time – that he was out of the c ountry and that his t emporary

secret ary

did not fol low office procedu re – are no t sufficient circum stances to justify the delay. In any event, how ever, the timeliness of the fi ling of t he Correct ed Designati on is i rrel evant, because, as discuss ed above, Rule 8006 only al lows for a cr oss appel lee t o file an addit ional designation in r esponse t o a cross a ppeal. No cross appealwas filed he re. Ac cord ingly, we will A FFIR M the ord er of th e D istrict Co urt.