### NOT FOR PU BLICA TION

U NIT E D ST A T E S BA NK RU PT CYA PPE L L A T E PA N E L

OF T HE NINT H CIRCU IT In re: A L AN M. B A R T L E T T A N D L U Z M A R IN A B A R T L E T T -M O R A N ,

Deb to rs. A L AN M. B A R T L E T T,

A p pellant,

v. D A V ID A
. B IR D S E L L , C H A P T E R 7 T RU S T E E ; C IT IB A N K, S O U T H D A K O T A, N .A .,

A p pellees. BA P N o . A Z -17-1047-TaBK u BA P N o . A Z -18-1093-TaBK u BA P N o . A Z -18-1096-TaBK u (R elated A ppeals) Bk. N o . 2:00-b k-11770-MC W A dv. N o . 2:01-ap-01276-MCW A dv. N o . 2:01-ap-00059-MCW

MEMO RA N DU M *

A rgued and Sub m itted o n O c tob er 25, 2018

at Seattle, W A Filed – N o vemb er 15, 2018 A ppeal fro m the U nited States Bankruptcy C o urt

fo rthe Distric t o f A rizo na 

# FIL ED
N OV 15 2018
SUSAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S. BKCY

. APP. PANEL O F T HE NI NT H CI RCUI T

*Thi s di sposi ti on i s not appr opr i ate for publi cati on. Although i t may be ci ted for whatev er per suasiv e v alue i t may hav e, seeFed. R. App. P. 32.1, i t has no pr ecedenti al v alue, see9th Ci r . BAP Rule 8024-1.Ho no r ab le Madeline C arm el W anslee, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding

A ppearanc es: A p pellant A lan M. Bartlett argued prose.
Befo r e: T A Y L O R, B R AN D , and KU R T Z , Bankruptcy Judges.

INT ROD U CT I ON A lan Bartlett (“Bartlett”) and Luz Marina Bartlett-Mo ran (c o llec tively, “Deb to rs”) filed a chapter 7 1 petitio n in 2000 b u t failed to ob tain a discharge o f their deb ts. C itib ank, So uth Dako ta, N .A . (“C itib ank”)
ob tained a no ndischargeab ility judgm ent b y default. A nd the chapter 7 trustee later ob tained a default judgm ent revo king Deb to rs’ discharge o f all deb t. Deb to rs did no tappeal fro meither default judgm ent, and no thing happened in the c lo sed chapter 7 c ase fo r well o ver a dec ade. In 2016, Bartlett sought to reo pen the c ase to “enfo rc e” the discharge. The b ankruptcy c o urt denied the m o tio n, and Bartlett appealed. He later filed no tic es o f appeal o f the default judgm ents. But tho s e appeals are untim ely and we, ac c o rdingly, lac k jurisdic tio n o ver the adversary pro c eeding judgm ents. A nd as fo r Bartlett’s m o tio n to reo pen, he fails to pro vide us with a rec o rd adequate toreview the b ankruptcy c o urt’s

1 Unless specifi ed other wi se, all chapterand secti on r efer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S

. C. §§ 101-1532, and all “Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder al Rules of Bankr uptcy Pr ocedur e. 2dec isio n. A c c o r dingly, we DISMISS BA PN o s. A Z -18-1093 and A Z -18-1096

fo r lac k o f jurisdic tio n and SU MMA R ILYA FFIRM in BA P N o . A Z -17-1047. FA CT S 2 Deb to rs filed a chapter 7 petitio n in 2000. C itib ank sub sequently filed
a c o m plaint to render its c laimno ndischargeab le under § 523(a)(2)(A ). The b ankruptcy c o urt later entered a default judgm ent in C itib ank’s favo r. The b ankruptcy c o urt’s do c ket 3 reflec ts that, altho ugh Deb to rs initially rec eived a discharge and their c a se was c lo sed, the Trustee later withdrew his no -asset repo rt and ob tained an o rder reo pening the Deb to rs’ b ankruptcy c ase. The Trustee then filed a c o m plaint seeking turno ver o f Deb to rs’ 2000 tax returns and any refunds o r, in the alternative, revo c atio n
o f their discharge. In 2002, the b ankruptcy c o u rt entered a separate judgm ent revo king Deb to rs’ discharge. The b ankruptcy c o urt’s do c ket 4 reflec ts that thereafter the Trustee entered a sec o nd repo rt o f no distrib utio n, and the b ankruptcy c o urt c lo s ed the c ase. O ver a dec ade later, in N o vemb er 2016, Bartlett filed a m o tio n that

2 We exer ci se our di scr eti on to take j udi ci al noti ce of documents electr oni cally fi led in the bankr u ptcy case. See Atwood v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood) , 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Ci r. BAP 2003).

3 Bar tlett di d not pr ov i de a copy of the r elev ant documents, and they ar e not av a i lable thr ough CM/ECF.

4 Agai n, Bar tlett di d not pr ov i de a copy of the r elev ant documents and they ar e not av ai lable thr ough CM/ECF. 3the b ankruptcy c o urt later c o nstrued as a m o tio n to reo pen. He also filed a

variety o f m o tio ns “fo r Sum m ary Judgm ent” and “to A ppro ve Enfo rc em ent o f Bankruptcy Injunc tio n.” Later, he filed a m o tio n m o re
c learly seeking to reo p en his 2000 b ankruptcy and requesting enfo rc em ent
o f his alleged discharge injunc tio n. A fter a hearing, the b ankruptcy c o urt entered a signed m inute o rder denying the m o tio n to reo p en fo r the reaso ns stated o n the rec o r d. Bartlett tim ely appealed. Later, he alsofiled no tic es o f appeal in the two adversary pro c eedings. JU RISD ICT ION The b ankruptcy c o urt had jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . §§ 1334 and 157(b )(2)(A ), (H), and (I). W e c o nsider o ur jurisdic tio n b elo w. ISSU E S Whether we have jurisdic t io n to review the adversary pro c eeding judgm ents. Whether the b a nkruptcy c o urt ab used its disc r etio n when it denied Bartlett’s m o tio n to reo pen the b ankruptcy c ase. ST A ND A RD OF RE V I E W W e review o ur o wn jurisdic tio n de no vo . Ellis v. Y u (In re Ellis) , 523 B.R . 673, 677 (9th C ir. BA P 2014). W e review the denial o f a m o tio n to
reo pen a b ankruptcy c ase fo r ab use o f disc r etio n. S ta ffer v. Predo vich (In re S ta f fer) , 306 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2002).

4D ISCU SSION

Bartlett filed three appeals; he discussed themall in o ne o pening b rief; we lib erally c o nstrue his pro se sub m issio n. S ee Cruz v. S tein S tra uss Trust # 1361 (In re Cruz ) , 516 B.R . 594, 604 (9th C ir. BA P 2014). W e, sim ilarly, address the appeals jo intly. BA P Nos . A Z -18-1093 & A Z -18-1096: W e lac k juris dic tion ov e r the adv ers ary proc eeding

judg m ents . O ur jurisdic tio n to hear appeals is fo und in 28 U
. S .C . § 158. In relevant part, it states that an appeal m ust b e taken “in the tim e pro vided b y Rule 8002 o f the Bankruptc y Rules.” 28 U .S.C
. § 158(c )(2). Rule 8002, in turn, pro vides that a no tic e o f appeal m ust b e filed within 14 days o f entry o f the judgm ent. Fed. R . Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). This 14-day tim eline is a jurisdic tio nal requirem ent. W i lk ins v. Mencha ca(In re W ilk ins) , 587 B.R . 97, 107 (9th C ir. BA P2018). Here, the b ankruptcy c o urt entered judgm ent in C itib ank’s adversary pro c eeding in 2001 and in the Trustee’s adversary pro c eeding in 2002. Bartlett filed his no tic es o f appeal in 2018. W e, ac c o rdingly, lac k jurisdic tio n to review the judgm ents. 5 A c c o rdingly, we dis m is s BA P N o s. A Z -18-1093 & A Z -18-1096 fo r lac k o f jurisdic tio n. BA P No. A Z -17-1047: W e lac k juris dic tion ov er the Nov em ber 2002 order reopening

the bankruptcy c as e; we otherwis e s um m a rily affirmthe

5 On appeal, Bar tlett ar gues that the j udgments ar e v oi d because the complaints wer e not pr oper ly ser v ed. Ev en i f tr ue, hi s r emedy i s not an appeal. 5bankruptcy c ourt’s order. In his no tic e o f appeal, Bartlett states that he is

appealing the “revo c atio n o f discharge and [the] denial o f m o tio n fo r
sum m ary judgm ent seeking redress fo r po s t-discharge injunc t io n vio latio ns[.]” But we have already c o nc luded that we lac k jurisdic t io n o ver the judgm ent revo king his discharge. In his o pening b r ief, Bartlett do es no t discuss the denial o f his
m o tio ns fo r sum m ary judgm ent, m uch less argue that the b ankruptcy c o urt erred in do ing so
. A s a result, we deemany argum ent ab o ut that dec isio n waived. Pa dgett v. W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 986 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam ) (appellate c o urts “will no t o rdinarily c o nsider m atters o n appeal that are
no t spec ific ally and distinc tly raised and argued in appellant's o pening b rief”). Instead, the o nly argum ent Bartlett m akes in his o pening b rief ab o ut the adm inistratio n o f his m ain b ankruptcy c ase c o nc erns the N o vemb er 2001 reo pening o f his b ankruptcy c a se: he c o ntends the b ankruptcy c o urt ab used its disc retio n in do ing so . But, fo r the sam e reaso ns articulated ab o ve, we lac k jurisdic tio n o ver that o r der b ec ause the no t ic e o f appeal was
no t tim ely as tothat o rder. Bartlett’s no tic e o f appeal was tim ely filed o nly as to the b a nkruptc y c o u rt’s o rder o n Bartlett’s 2016 m o tio n to reo pen. W e thus have jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . § 158 in this singular c o ntext. That said, the b ankruptcy c o urt’s m inute o rder denying Bartlett’s

6m o tio n to reo pen inc o rpo rated o ral findings o f fac t and c o nc lusio ns o f law

m ade o n the rec o rd at the hearing. If a b ankruptcy c o u rt m akes its findings
o f fac ts and c o nc lusio ns o f law o n the rec o rd, the appellant m ust inc lude the transc ript as part o f the exc erpts o f rec o rd. M cCa r thy v. Prince (In re M cCa rthy) , 230 B.R . 414, 416–17 (9th Cir. BA P 1999). Here, Bartlett elec ted
no t to ob tain a transc ript. 6 N o r c an we find a c o py o f the transc ript o n the b ankruptcy c o urt’s do c ket. W e, thus, c anno t m eaningfully o radequately review the b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder denying the m o tio n to reo p en and determ ining that the o ther m o tio ns were m o o t. E h renberg v. Ca l. S ta te Univ., F ullerto n Fo und. (In re Bea chpo rt Entm ’t) , 396 F.3d 1083, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2005); Mo rrissey v. S tuteville (In re Mo r rissey) , 349 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 2003) (failing to pro vide a c ritic a l transc ript m ay result in sum m ary affirm anc e). A s a result, we m ay and do sum m a rily affirm

. A nd, as no ted, Bartlett’s o pening b rief addresses the b ankruptcy c o u rt’s 2001 decisio n to reo pen the b a nkruptc y c ase; he do es no t argue that the b ankruptcy c o urt erred when it denied his 2016 m o tio n to reo p en. A s a result, we deemany argum ent ab o ut the 2016 dec isio n waived. P a dgett, 587 F.3d at 986 n.2.

6 Post-appeal, the Uni ted S tates Di str i c t Cour t for the Di str i c t of Ar i z ona gr anted Bar tlett’s moti on to pr oceed in for ma pauper i s on appeal. See BAP No. AZ-17-1047, Dkt. No. 16. Bar tlett then asked the bankr uptcy cour t to cer ti fy that the appeal was not fr i volous, but pr esents a substanti al questi on, so the Uni ted S tates would pay for pr epar a ti on of the tr anscr i pts. Bk. Case No. 2:00-bk-11770-MCW, Dkt. Nos. 97 and 98. The bankr uptcy cour t found that the appeal was fr i v olous and deni ed the r equested cer ti fi cati on. Bk. Case No. 2:00-bk-11770-MCW, Dkt. No. 106. 7CONCL U SION

Based o n the fo rego ing, we DISMISS BA P N o s. A Z -18-1093 and A Z

18-1096 fo r lac k o f jurisdic tio n and SU M MA R ILYA FFIRM in BA P N o . A Z -17-1047.

8