1 15-13-bk Ralph H. Drake, Jr. v. United States of Ameri ca, on behalf of Internal Revenue Service.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DA TABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CI TING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19 th day of November, two thousand and fifteen.

Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

____________________________________________________ R ALPH H. D RAKE , J R

. Debtor-Appellant , v. No. 15-13-bk

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , ON BEHALF OF I NTERNAL R EVENUE S ERVICE , Appellee.

____________________________________________________ For Debtor-Appellant: S TEPHEN J. W AITE , Waite & Associates, P.C., Albany, NY, for Debtor-Appellant. For Appellee: R ACHEL I. W OLLITZER , Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Francesca Ugolini and Caroline D. Ciraolo, on the brief ), for Richard S. Hartunian, United Stat es Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellee

.2 ____________________________________________________ Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J .). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Ralph H. Drake, Jr., a debtor unde r Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, objects to a proof of claim filed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). The Bankruptcy Court (Littlefield, Jr., J. ) denied Drake’s objection, an d the District Court (Kahn, J. ) affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. We assume the par ties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. The government argues that we should vacate the judgment of the district court because the Appellant lacked standing under 11 U.S.C. § 502 to object to the IRS’s proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. We need not reach this issue, however, because whether a Chapter 7 debtor may object to a proof of claim is a question of statutory standing. Such questions do not generally implicate the subject-m atter jurisdiction of a federa l court unless “Congress clearly states that a limitation on a statute’s scope is jurisdictional.” Paulsen v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC , 773 F.3d 462, 468 (2d Cir. 2014). We have held that other limitations in the Bankruptcy Code are “decisive ly” nonjurisdictional. In re Zarnel , 619 F.3d 156, 169 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that 11 U.S.C. §§ 109, 301, and 303 presented nonjurisdictional limits on who was eligible for bankruptcy relief). Nothing in § 502 refers to jurisdic tion or indicates that Congress intended the “party in interest” li mitation to be jurisdictional in nature. We therefore assume without deciding that Ap pellant had standing to object to the IRS’s proof of claim in the bankruptcy court. After reviewing the issues on a ppeal and the record of3 the proceedings below, we conclude that the ba nkruptcy court did not e rr in denying Appellant’s objection to the IRS’s proof of claim on the merits and did not abuse its discretion in doing so without holding a hearing. Appella nt was given “notice and a hear ing” as required by 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). See 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)(A) (defini ng “notice and a hearing” as used in § 502 to mean “after such notice as is appropria te in the particular circumstances, and such opportunity for a hearing as is appropriate in th e particular circumstances”), an d the evidence was sufficient to support the bankruptcy court’s allo wance of the IRS claim. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judg ment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK