2006 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 12-22-2006 

# In Re: B anks P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1829

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: B ank s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 27. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/27DL D- 6 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O S. 06- 1829, 06- 1830, 06- 1831, 06- 1832, 06- 1833, 06- 1834, 06- 1835, 06- 1836, 06- 1848, 06- 1850

________________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. W I LLI A M T. BE RG ER ; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

__________________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. RI CH A RD P. H ER BE RT ; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

___________________2 I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. W A LTE R B Y RD ; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

_______________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. D O N V . W ELL S, J R. ; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

________________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant3 v. M ONKE Y KAR AOKE ; VI OS OF T WARE ; KAT RI NA M CE LR O Y ; J I M M Y D O ; W A RR EN D O ; U . S.

ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

___________________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. RA Y RU SSELL , J R. ; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

_______________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. TI M D A V I S; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

________________4 I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. N A TH A N A N G ELU S SO FTW A RE PRO V I SI O N S;

U. S . ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

_________________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l ant v. PETE R J. CA LA BR ESE; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

_______________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, D ebt or FRE D ER I CK H . BA N K S, A ppel l antB anks chos e as D efe ndant s i n thes e ac t i ons vi ct i m s and w i tnes s es of cr i m es for 1 wh i c h th e Un i t e d S t a t e s p r o s e c u t e d h i m. 5 v. TH O M A S FRE U N D ; U . S. ATT ORNEY' S OFF I CE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D .C . C iv . N o s . 0 5 -0 0 5 9 4 , 0 5 -0 0 5 9 5 , 0 5 -0 0 5 9 6 , 0 5 -0 0 5 9 7 , 0 5 -0 0 5 9 8 , 05- 00599, 05- 00600, 05- 00601, 05- 00613, & 05- 00615) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember30, 2006 Be f o r e : BA RRY , AM BRO AN D FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber22, 2006)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM O n N ovember1, 2001, Fr eder i ck H . B anks fi l ed forbankrupt cypr ot ect i on under C hapt er7 of the B ankrupt cyC ode. T he appoi nt ed trus t ee i n bankrupt cyfi l ed a r eportof no asset s. In 200 5, B ank s fi l ed m anyadv ers aryact i on s, i ncludi ng the ten ati ssue i n these re late d a p p e a ls. T h e U n ited S tate s u n su c c e ss f u llym o v e d in th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt to 1 i nt ervene i n s om e of them. T he B ankrupt cyC our t , hol di ng thati tl acke d s ubj ect - m att erI n thei rm ot i on, theyal s o as k us t o aff i r m a s epar at el yappea l ed- fr om or deri n another 2 c a se b ro u g h t b yB a n k s. W e d o n o t p re se n tlyc o n sid e r th a t re q u e st. 6 juri sd ict ion o v er the se a d v ersa ryac ti o n s (an d o thers tha t w e d o n o t prese n tl yco n side r) becau se theyrel at ed o nlyt o p ost -pet i t i on act s unrel at ed to the ad m i nis trat i on of B ank s’ bankrupt cycas e, di s m i s s ed them. B anks appea l ed t o the D i s tr i ctC our t . T he U ni t ed St at es di d notappea l fr om the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng i t s m ot i on t o i nt ervene, butm oved t o i nt ervene ort o fi l e an a m i cus cur i ae br i ef i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeni ed the mot i on t o i nt ervene, butal l ow ed the U ni t ed St at es t o fi l e a br i ef. T he D is tr ic t C o u rt a f

f ir m e d th e o rd e r d is m is s in g th e a d v e rs a ry a c tio n s . B anks appea l s . T he U ni t ed St at es does notappea l fr om the or derdeny i ng the m ot i on t o i nt ervene. H ow ever , the U ni t ed St at es and the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney ’ s O ffi ce, neither of w ho m w ere part i es i n the D i stri ctC ou rt , bu tthe latt er of w ho m i s nam ed as a partyon appea l , fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryact i on, s eeki ng aff i r m ance of the or der di s m i s s i ng the adve r s aryact i ons , and a mot i on t o s t aythe br i efi ng s chedul e pendi ng t he 2 r es ol ut i on of the mot i on fors um m aryact i on. T he C l erk gr ant ed the mot i on t o s t aythe br i efi ng s chedul e. B anks oppos es the mot i on fors um m aryact i on, m oves for r econs i der at i on of the or dergr ant i ng the mot i on t o s t aythe br i efi ng s chedul e, and moves t o st ri ke b oth m oti on s. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or der p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 8 (a), an d w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or derunder28 U . S. C . §§ 158( d) & 1291. W e exe r ci s e the s ame st andar d of r evi ew as t heA l though B anks t ook i s s ue i n t he D i s tr i ctC our tw i th the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s act i on 3 t o di s m i s s hi s adver s aryact i ons s ua s pont e, as the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, the B ankrupt cyC our tw as obl i gat ed t o eval uat e i t s j ur i s di ct i on and di s m i s s the ac t i ons over w hi ch i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on. 7 D i s tr i ctC our t , s ubj ect i ng the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons t o pl enaryr evi ew and r evi ew i ng i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . See I n r e U ni t ed H eal thcar e Sy s . , 396 F .3 d 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e cons i derfi r s tthe pendi ng m ot i ons . M or e s peci fi cal l y , w e mustdeci de w hether th e U n ited S tate s a n d th e U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice h a v e sta n d in g to a d v a n c e th e ir p e n d in g m o tio n . A lth o u g h th e U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice is n o m in a llya p a rtyto thes e r el at ed appe al s , the appe al ed- fr om or derdoes notaff ecti t s r i ght s orthe U ni t ed S ta te s ’ r ig h ts . A c c o rd in g ly, th e yla c k s ta n d in g to a rg u e th e m e ri ts o f th e s e a p p e a ls . See M ar s hal l v. Sun Pet r ol eum P r oduct s C o. , 622 F. 2d 1176, 1188 ( 3d C i r . 1980) ( concl udi ng thatnom i nal part i es on appea l have no s t andi ng t o defe nd the mer i t s of a d e c is io n ); In re S t. C la ir& K a re n M . S t. C la ir , 2 5 1 B .R . 6 6 0 , 6 7 0 & n .1 1 (D .N .J . 2 0 0 0 ). W e th e re f

o re d e n yth e m o tio n f

o r su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e in so f

a r a s it re late s to th e a p p e a ls l i s t ed above . W e do notgr antr econs i der at i on of the or ders t ay i ng the br i efi ng s chedul e, h o w e v e r. N o r d o w e g ra n t B a n k s ’ m o tio n to s tr ik e th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n s . E v e n th o u g h w e d e n yth e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n f o r su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e , w e w ill s u mma r i l ya f

f i r m b e c a u s e n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l . S e e L. A. R. 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. T he B ankrupt cyC our ti ndeed l acke d s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on over the t en l i s t ed adve r s aryact i ons . T w o s t atut es , 28 U . S. C . §§ 1334 and 157, pr ovi de the 38

s our ce of a bankrupt cycourt ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. See B i nderv. Pr i ce W at erhous e & C o. , 372 F .3 d 1 5 4 , 1 6 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). U n d e r t h e s e s ta tu te s , a n d re le v a n t to o u r a n a lysis h e re , a bankrupt cycourthas j ur i s di ct i on overthos e ca s es “‘ atl eas t“r el at ed t o” the bankrupt cy . ’ ” In re M a rc u s H o o k D e v . P a rk , In c ., 9 4 3 F .2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). L i t i gat i on i s r el at ed t o a bankrupt cyi f i t s out come coul d “conc ei vabl yhave a nyeff ecton the es t at e bei ng admi ni s tr at ed i n bankrupt cy . ” See Pac or , I nc. v. H i ggi ns , 743 F. 2d 984, 994 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ; s ee a l s o I n r e M ar cus H ook D ev. Par k, I nc. , 943 F. 2d at264 ( s tr es s i ng th e ter m “ c o n c e iv a b ly ” ). M o re sp e c if ica lly , an a c tio n is re late d to b a n k ru p tcy i f its out come “coul d al t erthe debt or ’ s r i ght s , l i abi l i t i es , opt i ons , orfr eedom of act i on ( ei ther pos i t i vel yornegat i vel y ) and w hi ch i n anyw ayi m pact s upon the handl i ng and ad m inistrati o n o f th e b an k rup tcyestate.” S ee P ac o r, 7 4 3 F . 2 d at 99 4 . T h e ten ad v ersa ry a c tio n s w e re u n re late d to b a n k ru p tcy be c a u se , as B a n k s p lain lya lleg e s in a ll o f h is compl ai nt s , the s uppos ed w r ongs occurr ed i n 2002 orbey ond. A ccor di ngl y , theyar e not pr opertyof the bankrupt cyes t at e s uch thatthei rr es ol ut i on w oul d aff ectthe handl i ng or admi ni s tr at i on of the es t at e. See I n r e B obr off, 766 F. 2d 797, 803 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( ci t i ng 11 U . S. C . § 541 forthe pr opos i t i on that“the onl ypr opertyi nt er es t s of a de bt orthat b ec o m e p art of

the e stat e a re tho se e x ist ing ‘as o f th e c o m m en ce m en t of the c ase . ’”) In su m , b e c a u se th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt lac k e d su b jec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n , w e w ill aff i r m the or deri ns om uch as i tdi s m i s s ed the t en l i s t ed adve r s aryact i ons . A s w e not ed above, the mot i ons of the U ni t ed St at es , the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney ’ s O ffi ce, and B anks ar e deni ed.