NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0103n.06 Case No. 16-3790 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

SCHWAB INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, and ANDREW KRAUSE, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: BOGGS, SILER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
SILER , Circuit Judge. Schwab Industries, Inc. (“ Schwab Inc.”) appeals from the district court’s grant of motions to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. Schwab Inc. filed its appeal in the district court two days after the stat utory deadline for appeals from bankruptcy-court orders and judgments. We affirm the district court’s order di smissing the bankruptcy appeal because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal.
I. In 1992, Jerry Schwab retained attorney Andrew Krause to prepare an irrevocable trust. The trust agreement identified Huntington Trust Comp any of Florida, an affiliate of Huntington National Bank (the “bank”), as th e trustee. Jerry Schw ab’s business, Schwab Inc., entered into an agreement with the bank, stipulating that Schw ab Inc. would pay on the life-insurance policies that were assets of the trust. In exchange fo r payment of the premiums, the bank granted SchwabCase No. 16-3790 , Schwab Indus., Inc. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank

- 2 - Inc. a collateral interest in those life-insurance policies. See Schwab v. Huntington Nat’l Bank , 516 F. App’x 545, 546 (6th Cir. 2013) (reciting underlying facts). After forming the trust, Krause joined Hahn Loeser & Park s, LLP (the “firm”). In 20 09, Jerry Schwab advised the bank that the advisory committee for the trust intended to assign some life-insurance contracts to certain secured creditors. The bank retained Krause to review the pr oposed action and provide an opinion on it. In 2010, the firm filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 on behalf of Schwab Inc. See id. The bankruptcy court authorized the sa le of certain assets and approved the assignment of some contracts and leases. Th e case involving Schwab Inc.’s bankruptcy is ongoing. In 2014, Schwab Inc. filed a lawsuit against the bank, firm, and attorneys affiliated with the firm (“Defendants”), alleging various state-law claims. De fendants removed the case to the bankruptcy court, thereby creating separate adversary proceedings involving the bank and firm. Schwab Inc. moved to remand and withdraw th e bankruptcy reference, which the bankruptcy court denied in 2014. Defendants filed a motion fo r sanctions, which is s till pending before the bankruptcy court. Schwab Inc. filed separa te notices of appeal to the distri ct court, challe nging the orders denying remand and withdrawal. While that appeal was pending, th e bankruptcy court consolidated the adversary proceedings. Observing that Schwab Inc. failed to move for leave to file an interlocutory app eal, the district court neve rtheless reviewed the app eal as if properly filed and found “no basis to permit an interl ocutory appeal in these matters.” Schwab Indus. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank , Nos. 5:14CV2578, 5:14CV2586, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65848, at *7 (N.D. Ohio May 19, 2015).Case No. 16-3790 , Schwab Indus., Inc. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank

- 3 - On September 21, 2015, the bankruptcy court gr anted motions to dismiss on grounds that Schwab Inc. lacked standing. On October 7, 2015—16 days after entry of the order—Schwab Inc. moved for leave to file an interlocutor y appeal from the orders denying remand and dismissal. The district court denied the moti on as moot because the orders are “final.” According to the district court, the pending sancti ons motion is “collateral to the merits” and did not affect the finality of the bankruptcy court’ s orders. After accepting the case as a direct appeal, the district court se t a briefing schedule. In 2016, the district court granted motions to dismiss the appeal as untimely because the notice of appeal was filed two days late. Schwab Indus. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank , No. 5:15-cv2098, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83284, at *3–4 (N.D. Ohio June 24, 2016).
II. A federal court must determine whether it has jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a

case. Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Mala ysia Int’l Shipping Corp. , 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007). The appellant has the burden of estab lishing that the appellate court ha s jurisdiction to hear the case. Melendres v. Maricopa Cty. , 815 F.3d 645, 649 (9th Cir. 2016). A statutory deadline to file an appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation om itted). We review de novo questions about jurisdiction. Internal Revenue Serv. v. Hildebrand ( In re Brown ), 248 F.3d 484, 486 (6th Cir. 2001).
III. Schwab Inc. argues that the district court er red in deeming final the bankruptcy court’s orders because the Constitution and relevant stat utes preclude the bankrup tcy court from entering a final order on non-core bankruptcy proceedings. Schwab Inc. contends that the bankruptcyCase No. 16-3790 , Schwab Indus., Inc. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank

- 4 - court had no authority to issue a final order on th e state-law claims. The district court’s order setting a briefing schedule for the appeal, Schwab Inc. asserts, ta inted the entire appeal because the district court erred in conc luding that a final order had i ssued from which the appeal was sought. Schwab Inc. argues that the timing of its appeal is immaterial because the issue presented is whether the bankruptcy court had the capacity to enter final judgment on the claims. According to Schwab Inc., the di strict court erroneously conclude d, without analysis or briefing, that the appealed judgments are final. We affirm without addressing the district court’s conclusi on on finality because Schwab Inc. filed its appeal two days late without excuse . True, “Article III prevents bankruptcy courts from entering final judgments on claims that seek only to ‘augment’ the bankruptcy estate and would otherwise ‘exis[t] without regard to any bankruptcy proceeding.’” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif , 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1941 (2015) (quoting Stern v. Marshall , 564 U.S. 462, 498 (2011)). But before the underlying merits can be addressed, the appeal must be timely and the appellate court must have jurisdiction to review the matter. Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 210 (2007) (“[T]he courts of appeals routinely and uniformly dismiss untimely appeals for lack of jurisdiction.”); Giovanni v. Johnson ( In re Johnson ), 82 F. App’x 166, 167 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Accordingly, the BAP’s order dismissing Giova nni’s untimely bankruptcy appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.”). “[A] notice of appeal must be filed with th e bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree being appeale d.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002( a). “Compliance with the [14-day] filing rule is a jurisdictional requirement.” Crider v. Dobbs ( In re Crider ), No. 98- 2376, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2098, at *7 (6th Ci r. Feb. 10, 2000). Ex ceptions exist for untimeliness, but none are relevant in this case. See Schwab Indus. , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXISCase No. 16-3790 , Schwab Indus., Inc. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank

- 5 - 83284, at *4 (“Here, appellant filed no motion with the bankruptcy court (o r with this Court) seeking an extension of time.”); see also French v. Phoenix Corp. ( In Re Phoenix Corp. ), Nos. 95-6679, 96-5024, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 19193, at *12 (6th Cir. July 22, 1997) (noting an exception for “substantial compliance,” which is not alleged here). “Cases interpreting Rule 8002 hold that it shall be strictly construed and th at failure to timely file is a jurisdictional [requirement] that precludes a district court from reaching the merits.” Willis v. Sicherman , 904 F.2d 709, No. 89-3482, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9487, at *3–4 (6th Cir. Jun. 11, 1990) (unpublished table decision) (citations omitted); see also Walker v. Bank of Cadiz ( In re LBL Sports Center, Inc. ), 684 F.2d 410, 412 (6th Cir. 1982) (“[A] district court lack s jurisdiction over an appeal that is not timely file d pursuant to Rule [8002(a)].”). Whether the bankruptcy court’s ac tions are final is not relevant or essential to decide the issue of timeliness. The reticent analysis by the dist rict court reflects that little needs to be said when an appeal is untimely. That Schwab Inc. de clines to brief untimeliness or proffer an excuse is salient and dispositive on a reco rd without contradiction. Schwab Inc. filed its notice of appeal two days after the deadline and provides no explan ation for how the district court—sitting in an appellate instance—could exercise jurisdic tion to review the ba nkruptcy appeal. AFFIRMED

.