NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATE S COUR T OF APPEAL S

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 1

- 2 7 5 4

__________

In re: TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LLC

, D e b t o r

RAMON MORENO

- CUEVAS

, Appellant

__________________________________ __

On Appeal from the United States Di strict Court

for the District of D e l a w a r e

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1 : 2 1

- c v

- 0 0 4 5 8 )

District Judge: Ho norable M a ry e l l e n N o r e i k a

_

___________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

A u g u s t 1

, 2 0 2 2

Before: M C K E E

, S H W A R T Z a n d M A T E Y

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : Augus t 31, 2022 )

______ _____

OPIN ION *

___________

PER CURIAM

R a m o n M o r e n o

- C u e v a s

, w h o i s p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e

, appeals from the District

Court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal as untimely

. For the reasons that follow,

w e w i l l d i s m i s s t h e ap p e a l f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n

.

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I .O.P. 5.7 does not2 I n 2 0 1 9

, M o r e n o

- C u e v a s f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the

D i s t r i c t o f C o n n e c t i c u t a g a i n s t T o w n S p o r t s I n t e rn a t i o n a l a n d r e l a t e d p a r t i e s ( “ t h e

C o n n e c t i c u t a c t i o n ” )

. W h i l e t h a t a c t i o n w a s p e n d i n g

, T o w n S p o r t s I n t e rn a t i o n a l f i l e d

b a n k r

u

p t c y p e t i t i o n s u n d e r c h ap t e r 1 1 i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t f o r t h e

D i s t r i c t o f D e l a w a r e

. M o r e n o

- C u e v a s t h e n f i l e d m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s t h e b a n k r

u

p t c y c a s e

,

a l l e g i n g t h a t i t impinged on h i s right to a jury trial i n t h e C o n n e c t i c u t a c t i o n

. T o w n

S p o r t s I n t e rn a t i o n a l f i l e d a n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s

, a r g u i n g t h a t i t s c h ap t e r

1 1 p e t i t i o n s w e r e f i l e d i n g o o d f a i t h

. T h e B a n kr u

p t c y C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n s t o

d i s m i s s b y o r d e r e n t e r e d J a n u a r y 2 5

, 2 0 2 1

. M o r e n o

- C u e v a s f i l e d a n o t i c e o f ap p e a l o n

M a r c h 2 9

, 2 0 2 1

.

T o w n S p o r t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l m o v e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the

D i s t r i c t o f D e l a w a r e t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l o n t h e b a s i s t h a t M o r e n o

- C u e v a s ’ n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l w a s n o t t i m e l y f i l e d

. ( E C F 1 0

. ) T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

,

h o l d i n g t h a t i t lack e d jurisdiction because M o r e n o

- C u e v a s d i d n o t f i l e h i s ap p e a l w i t h i n

1 4 d a y s o f e n t ry o f t h e B a n kr u

p t c y C o u r t ’ s o r d e r

, a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f

B a n k r u

p t c y P r o c e d u r e 8 0 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 )

. ( E C F 2 2

. ) T h i s t i m e l y a p p e a l f o l l o w e d

. ( E C F 2 9

. )

We have jurisdiction to re vie w the District Court’s orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d)( 1 )

. S ee In re Caterbone , 640 F.3d 108, 111 (3d Ci r. 2 011). We review de novo

w het her the Di strict Court properly dismissed M o r e n o

- C u e v a s ’ appeal as time

- barred.

S ee i d

.

constitute bind ing preced e nt.3 The 14

- day time period for filing a bankruptcy appeal is mandatory and

jurisdictional

, s ee Caterbone , 640 F.3d at 110 , and it is not subje ct to equitable tolling,

see Bo wles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (indicating that federal courts have “no

authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements”)

. T h e 14

- day

ap peal p eriod in this case expired on M o n d a y

, F e b r u a ry 8

, 2 0 2 1

. M o r e n o

- C u e v a s ’ n o t i c e

o f ap p e a l w a s f i l e d o n M a r c h 2 9

, 2 0 2 1

, t h e d a t e t h a t t h e B a n k r

u

p t c y C o u r t r e c e i v e d i t

.

See Caterbone , 640 F.3d at 110 (indicating that a notice of appeal is deemed filed when

t he court receives it, not when it is mailed)

. 1 Although Fed eral R ule of Bankr uptcy

P r ocedure 8002(d) allows a party to seek an extension of the appeal period by filing a

motion showing excusable neglect with the B ankruptcy C ourt no later than 21 day s afte r

the expira tion of th e initial 14

- day appeal p eriod

, Moreno

- Cuevas never requ ested su ch

an extension.

F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, we w i l l d i s m i s s t h e ap p e a l f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n

. 2 S e e

C a t e r b o n e

, 6 4 0 F

. 3 d a t 1 1 1 ( s t a t i n g t h a t “ [ i ] f our indepen dent r eview yields the

conclusion th at the District C ourt lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from

the Bankruptcy Court, the appropriate disposition is dismissal of the appeal ” )

1 In the Distri ct Court, Mo reno

- Cueva s offered various the ories as to why his notice of

appeal should be cons idered timely. (ECF 1 3

. ) For the reasons pro vided by the District

Cou rt (EC F 22, a t 5

- 7) , we con clude that those t he ories lack merit.

2 We deny Moreno

- Cuevas ’ reques t to file a supplemental appendix , to provide a

sub sti tute appendi x for the one filed by the App ell ee, and to expand the record to include

documents filed in the Di strict of Conne cticut is gr anted

. (Doc . 45.) The do cument s that

Moreno

- Cueva s asks us to consider are not necessary to the disposition of this appeal.