FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCT 31, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 11 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et No. 0 5- 00 54 4- CV-KD-C

JOSEP H DZW ONKOW SKI, SR.,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
JOSEP H DZW ONKOW SKI, JR ., SONITROL OF MOBILE, INC., ROBERT DZW ONKOW SKI, ALAB C. CHRISTIAN, ERIN DZW ONKOW SKI, et al.,
Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oc to ber 3 1, 2 00 8)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:Jo se ph Dzwon ko wsk i, Sr. (“ Jo e Sr.”) ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s en try of

f i n a l ju dg m en t in fav or of hi s so ns , Ro be rt Dzwon ko wsk i an d Jo se ph

D z w o nk ows ki , Jr

. (“ th e So ns ”), in th is in tra fam il y di sp ut e ov er th e own ers hi p a n d

co nt r o l o f So ni tro l of Mo bi le , In c., a cl os el y he ld co rp or at io n. Bec au se we

co nc lu d e t ha t we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Jo e Sr.’s ch al le ng e to th e di st ric t

co ur t’s o r d e r s d is m is si ng hi s co m pl ai nt , we ad dr es s on th e m eri ts hi s cl ai m s th at

t h e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in : (1 ) di rect in g Jo e Sr. to pa y sa nc ti on s a n d

at to rn ey s’ fees , an d (2 ) st rik in g Jo e S r.’s no ti ce of ba nk ru pt cy cas e fil in g. Afte r
th or ou gh rev ie w, we di sm is s t he ap pe al in pa rt, a nd affi rm it in pa rt.
W he re it ap pe a r s th at we m ay la ck juri sd ic ti on , we m us t rev ie w ou r juri sd ic ti on in th e fir st in st an ce. Ro bi ns on v. Tan ne r, 79 8 F.2 d 13 78 , 13 79 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 86 ). W e rev ie w juri sd ic ti on al is su es de no vo

. AT&T Mo bi li ty, L.L.C. v.
Nat’l Ass ’n fo r St oc k C ar Aut o Rac in g, In c., 49 4 F.3 d 13 56 , 13 60 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 07 ). W e r e v ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s or de r award in g at to rn ey s’ fees an d sa nc ti on s
fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. A m lo ng & Am lo ng , P.A. v. Den ny’ s, In c., 50 0 F.3 d 12 30 , 12 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ); Tay lo r v
. Ci ty of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 81 0 F.2 d 15 51 , 15 56

2(1 1t h Ci r. 19 87 ). W e al so rev ie w an or de r st rik in g p l e ad in gs fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Mc Co rs ti n v . U.S. Dep’t o f Lab or , 63 0 F .2d 24 2, 2 44 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0)

. 1

A s an in it ia l m at te r, we m us t di sm is s Jo e Sr.’s ap pe al of th e di s t r i c t c o u r t ’s

o r d e r s d i s miss in g hi s co m pl ai nt

. “ It is by no w ab un da nt ly cl ear th at a ti m el y an d

pr op erl y fil ed no ti ce of ap pe a l is a m an da to ry pr ereq ui si te to ap pe ll at e juri sd i c t i o n

. ” H o ll om an v. Mai l-Well Co rp ., 44 3 F.3 d 83 2, 84 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ).
Und er Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 4( a)(1 )(A), an ap pe ll an t m us t fil e a

no ti ce of ap pe al “ wit h th e di st ric t c l e r k w i t h i n 30 da y s aft er th e jud gm en t or or de r

ap pe al ed fro m is en t e r e d

. ” Here, th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng Jo e Sr.’s

co m pl ai nt was is su ed in Ju l y 2 0 06 , an d reco ns id erat io n was de ni ed in Aug us t
20 06 , bu t Jo e Sr.’s no ti ce of ap pe al -- whi ch di d no t ev en m ak e refe ren ce to ei th er
of th es e o r de rs -- was no t fil ed un ti l May 20 08 , well ov er 30 da y s aft er th e or de rs

were is s u e d

. Th u s , to th e ex te nt Jo e Sr. is ap pe al in g th e 20 06 or de rs , hi s ap pe al is

un ti m el y an d we l ack juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th em

. 2

For mer F ifth Circuit decisions, issued befor e close of business on September 30, 1981, 1 bind this C ourt. Bonne r v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209- 10 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc)

. Whil e F eder al Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 4( a)( 4)(A) extends the tim e for appea ling a

n 2 order wher e a pa

rty has filed a

motion for “attorne y ’s fe es under Rule 54 if the district court extends the tim e to appe al under Rule 58,” (e mphasis added) , the district court did not extend the time to appeal he re. Mor eover , L ocal Rule 54.3(e ) of the Souther n District of Alaba

ma expressly provides that “[p]endency of a motion [for attorney s’ fe es] filed under this rule doe s not ex tend the time for a

ppealing from . . . the judg ment g iving r ise to the claim for attorney s’ fe es.”
3Tu r n i ng to th e m eri ts of th e rem ai ni ng ap pe al , we reject Jo e Sr.’s cl ai m th at

th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in di rect in g Jo e Sr. to pa y sa nc ti on s an d

at to rn ey s’ fees

. Jo e Sr. as se rt s th at th e award of fees an d sa nc ti on s “ sh ou ld ha ve
be en pr em is ed on a pr op er de te rm in at io n of [J oe Sr.’s] So ni tro l st oc k own ers hi p
cl ai m s .” Howev er, as we co nc lu de ab ov e, th e m eri ts of th e un de rlyin g act io n are

no t be fo re us

. And ev en mo r e i mpo rta nt to th e at to rn ey s’ f ees an d sa nc ti on s is su e,
Jo e S r

. h a s fai le d to sh ow an y erro r in th e ba se s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s award

-- th at , am on g ot he r th in gs , th e So ns were “ pr ev ai li ng pa rti es ,” Jo e Sr

. ’s act io ns
du rin g th e li ti ga ti on were “d i l a t o ry ” an d “ un du ly pr ejud ic ed ” th e So ns , an d Jo e
Sr.’s fil in gs were “ fri vo lo us ,” “ m eri tl es s,” an d “ ta nt am ou nt to ba d fai th .” I n sh or t,
Jo e Sr. ha s m ad e no sh owi ng wha ts oe ve r as to why t h e a w a r d o f at to rn ey s’ fees or
th e award of s an ct io ns was a n a bu se of d is cret io n. 3

W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in

st rik in g Jo e Sr.’s “ Not ic e of Ban k r u pt cy Cas e Fi li ng ” of So ni tro l of Mo bi le , In c.
Alt ho ug h we a r e u n p e r s ua de d by th e So ns ’ cl ai m on ap pe al th at th is or de r is no t

an ap pe al ab le fin al jud gm en t, we ne ve rth el es s re je c t J o e Sr.’s ch al le ng e to th e

I n addition, we lac k jurisdiction over any appea l in the name of Joe Sr.’s counsel, Willie 3 J ames Ellison, from the district cour t’s order direc ting Joe Sr. and Ellison to pay sanctions and attorney s’ fe es. The notice of appe al filed in this case provided only that J oe Sr. appe aled f

rom the district court’s or der. B eca use “[t] he fa ilure to name a party in a notice of

appea l . . . constitutes a fa ilure of that pa rty to appea l,” Holloman, 443 F.3d a t 844 (quotations omitt ed), Ellison has failed to per fec t any appea l he may

have he re.
4di st r i c t c ou rt’s st rik in g of a no ti ce ap pa ren tl y fil ed by Jo e Sr. on be ha lf of So ni tro l

wit ho ut th e co ns en t of an y So ni tro l rep res en ta ti ve s, an d in vi ol at io n of an or de r
fro m th e Uni te d St at es Ban kr up tc y Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri c t of Alab am a.
In de ed , th e di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d in he ren t po wers , a s well as au th or it y un de r
Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (f) to “ or de r st ric k e n f r o m a n y pl ead in g

. . . a ny
red un da nt , im m at eri al , im pe rti ne nt , or s can da lo us m at te r.” Jo e Sr. ha s no t m ad e

an y sh owi ng as t o h ow t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n s o d oi ng

. DISMI SSED i n pa rt, AFFIRMED i n pa rt.

5