### N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N

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: L U E V IN A H E N RY, Deb to r. L U E V IN A H E N RY, A p pellant,

v. RO D D A N IE L S O N, C hapter 13 Trustee,

A p pellee. BA P N o . C C -17-1249-TaLLs Bk. N o . 6:16-b k-16720-MJ

MEMO RA N DU M *

Sub m itted W itho ut O ral A rgum ent o n June 21, 2018

Filed – June 27, 2018 A ppeal fro m the United States Bankruptcy C o urt fo r the C entral Distric t o f C alifo rnia Ho no r ab le Meredith A . Jury, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding 

# FIL ED

JUN 27 2018
S USAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S. BKCY

. APP. P ANEL O F T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

* Thi s di s posi ti on i s not appr opr i a te for publi cati on. Although i t m ay be ci ted for whatev er per suasive v alue i t may hav e, see Fed. R. App. P. 3 2.1, i t has n o pr e c e d e n t ial v alue, see9th Ci r . BAP Rule 8024-1.A ppearanc es: A p pellant Luevina Henry, pro se, o n b rief.

Befo r e: Taylo r, Lafferty, and Lastreto, * *Bankruptcy Judges.

INT ROD U CT I ON Luevina H enry filed a no tic e o f appeal in her chapter 13 1 c ase b ut failed to c learly identify the o rder subje ct t o appeal. W e so ught the r equired spec ific ity and direc ted her to c larify. Eventually, she requested review o f an
o rder o n a m o tio n she initiated a fter she filed her no tic e o f appeal. Bec ause we lac k jurisdic tio n to review the o r der she designates, we DISMISS this appeal. F A C T U A L BA CK GROU N D H e n r y filed a chapter 13 petitio n in July 2016. 2 A m o nth later, J oh n Baker, her no w-fo rm er spo use, ob tained stay relief allo wing c o ntinuatio n o f

* * The Hon. René Lastr eto II, Uni ted S tates Bankr uptcy Judge for the Easter n Di str i ct of Cali for ni a, si tti ng by desi gnati on.

1 Unless s peci fi ed other wi s e, all chapter and s e c ti o n r e fer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S .C. §§ 101-1532, all “Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder al Rules of Bankr uptcy Pr ocedur e, and all “Civ i l Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder al Rules of Civ i l Pr ocedur e.

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 uptcy c ase and the r elated a dv er s a r y pr oceedings. See Atwood v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood), 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Ci r . BAP 2003). 2a State C o urt disso lutio n o f m arriage c ase. The b ankruptcy c o urt spec ific a lly

allo w ed enfo rc em ent o f jud gm e n t a g a in s t H e n ry ’ s c o m mu nity pro perty assets and also granted her relief fro m the stay to pursue her r em edies an d a ny appeals in the State C o urt m atter. A ppro xim ately a year later, Henry filed a no tic e o f appeal. In it she said she wanted t o appeal all “ d ec isio ns m ade fro m A ugust 10th thru 19th, dates: July 1, 2 0 1 6 th r ough and inc lusive d o c ket no s. 19 []A ugust 6, 2019

. . . .”She also referenc ed lifting o f the stay and attached a c o py o f her b ankruptcy c o urt do c ket that ended with entry numb er 3 3— an A ugust, 1 8, 2016 s tay relief
o rder. Lac king b o th s p ec ific ity and the c o py o f the o rder o n appeal required b y Rule 8003(a)(3)(B), we sent Henry a no tic e o f defic ient appeal and requested
a c o py o f the relevant o r der. A ppro xim ately two weeks later, Henry filed an ex parte applic atio n fo r
an em ergenc y o rder to c o m p el the sheriff to o pen the do o r s o f a ho use. That
sam e day, she also requested an o rder setting the hearing o n s ho rtened no tic e (the “O ST Mo tio n”). The b ankruptcy c o u rt pro m ptly denied the O S T Mo tio n b y o r de r d a t e d Septemb er 7, 2017 (the “O ST O rder”). The b ankruptcy c o urt
reaso ned that it entered an o rder term inating the auto m atic stay fo r ac tio n to
c o ntinue in the S tate Fam ily Law C o urt on Au g u s t 18, 2016, and that, as a result, there was nostay vio latio n and no relief it c o uld o rder. Just o ver a week later, Henry f i l e d a n other ex parte applic atio n fo r an

3em ergenc y o rder c o m pelling the s h e riff to o pen the do o rs o f the sam e

pro pe r ty ; s h e also a s ked that the m atter b e heard o n sho rtened no tic e. The b ankruptcy c o u r t again denied the r equest f o r an o rder sho rtening tim e b y
o rder entered o n Septemb er 15, 2 017. The o rder denied the m o tio n fo r the
sam e reaso ns given fo r the denial o f the O ST Mo tio n. Henry then filed an info rm al o pening b rief in this a ppeal. She stated that she was appealing o rders entered o n Septe mb er 7, 2017 and Septemb er 15, 2017. She also said that “ this appeal is b ased o n denial o f P laintiff’s Mo tio n to Disqualify Judge Meredith A . Jury . . . .” W e then issued an o rder direc ting Henry to identify the o rder o n appeal b y date, do c ket numb er, and title and to explain why the a ppeal sho uld no t b e dism issed as untim ely. In resp on s e, Henry indic ated that she wanted us to review the Septemb er 7

, 2017 O ST O rder. She neither discu ssed tim eliness no r asked us to review the Septemb er 1 5, 2017 o rder. The next day, she so ught p erm issio n to file an info rm al b rief. Even later, she filed a do cum ent with us and c alled it a reply (the “Reply”). 3 W e issued yet ano ther or d e r, granting H enry’s request to file an
am ended info rm al b rief and direc ting her to explain ho w the a ppeal was

3 It appear s that B a ker ’s attor ney pr epar ed, si gned, and s e nt Henr y a document di scussing our or derand H enr y’s r esponse. It was nev erdi r ectly fi led wi th the BAP. But Henr y’s Reply attaches i t as an exhibi t and r esponds to i t. 4tim ely as tothe O ST O rder.

Henry filed her am ended info r m al b rief; she did no t a ddress tim eliness. JU RISD ICT ION The b ankruptcy cou r t h a d jurisdic tio n u nder 28 U .S.C

. §§ 1334 and 157(b )(2). W e discuss o ur jurisdic tio n b elo w. ISSU E Whether we have jurisdic tio n to review the O ST O rder.

ST A ND A RD OF RE V I E W W e review o ur jurisdic tio n de no vo . Ellis v. Yu (In re Ellis) , 523 B.R

. 673, 677 (9th C ir. BA P 2014). D ISCU SSION Bankruptcy appeals are go verned b y 28 U

. S.C

. § 158. A s relevant here, it states: An appeal under sub sec tio ns (a) and (b ) of th i s sec tio n shall b e taken in the sam e m anner as appea l s i n c ivil pro c eedings generally are t aken to the c o urts o f appeals fro m the d istric t c o urts and in the tim e pro vided b y Rule 8002 o f the Bankruptcy Rules. 28 U .S.C

. § 1 58(c )(2). Rule 8002, in turn, pro vides: “[A ] no tic e o f appeal must b e filed with the b ankruptcy c lerk within 14 days after entry o f the judgm ent,
o rder, o r dec ree b eing appea l e d

. ” Fed. R

. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1) (em phasis added). Prem ature no tic es o f appea l , ho wever, are no t always fatal. Rule 8002(a)(3) pro vides: “A no tic e o f appeal filed after the b ankruptcy c o urt

5a nno unc es a dec isio n o r o rder--b ut b efo re entry o f the judgm ent, or d e r, or

dec ree--is treated as filed o n the date o f and after the e n t r y . ” F e d

. R

. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(3). S ee a lso HBI, Inc. v. S essio ns Payro ll M gm t., Inc. (In re Ma ckey) , 232 B.R

. 784, 787 (9th C ir. BA P 1999) (“Prem a ture no tic es o f appeal a re perm itted to b e filed o nc e a dec isio n is anno unc ed b ut b efo re the o rder or judgm ent is entered. They are treated as filed, i.e. c o nstruc tively filed, after the entry o f the
o rder and o n the day thereo f.” (c itatio ns o m itted)). Here, He n r y a s k s us to review the O ST O rder. But she filed her no tic e
o f appeal nearly two weeks b e fo re she requested the o r der sho rtening tim e. She did no t file ano ther no tic e o f appeal in the b ankruptcy c ase. 4 A s a result, her no tic e o f appeal was prem ature. N o r do es Rule 8002(a)(3) save this appeal. When Henry filed her no tic e o f appeal, the b ankruptcy c o urt c o uld no t have
a n n ou n c ed its dec isio n o n the O ST Mo tio n; it had no t yet b een filed

. As a result, her no tic e o f appeal c anno t b e treated as filed o n the O ST O r der entry date. 5 Given her pro se status, we lib erally c o nstrue Henry’s filings. S ee Cruz

4 Henr y has fi led two a dv er sar y p r o c e e d ings again st var i ous par ti es. In one, she appealed fr om the bankr uptcy cour t’s or der di s m i ssing her complaint against one of the defendants, cr eating a di ffer ent BAP appeal.

5 The pr esent s i tuati on thus also falls outsi d e the pur pose of the r ule. Rule 8002(a)(3) mi r r or s Feder al Rule of Appellate Pr ocedur e 4(a)(2). As the S upr eme Cour t explained, the pur pose of that r ule i s “t o pr otect the unski lled li ti gant who fi les a n oti ce of appeal fr om a deci si on that [s]he r easonably bu t m istakenly beli ev es to b e a final j udgment, whi le fai ling to fi le a noti c e of appeal fr om the a ctual final j u dgment.” FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Inv’rs Mortg. Ins. Co. , 498 U.S

. 269, 276 (1991); Serine v . Peterson , 989 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Ci r . 1993). 6v. S tein S tra uss Trust # 1361 (In re Cruz ) , 516 B.R

. 5 94, 604 (9th C ir. BA P 2014).

But th i s ma ndate o nly go es so far. The c lo s est she c o m es to addressing the tim eliness issue is in the Reply; there she asserts b o th that the O ST O rder was
v oi d ( a n d v o id o rders m a y b e a ttac ked at any tim e) and that Judge Jury sho uld have b een disqualified under 28 U

. S.C

. § 455. Even assum ing that she is c o rrec t as to vo idness, she has no t sho wn ho w
we c an m a k e that determ inatio n in the first instanc e. C f. Fed. R

. C iv. P. 6 0(b )(6) (pro viding that the trial c o urt m ay relieve a party fro m a vo id judgm ent); Fed. R. B a n k r . P. 9024 (applying C ivil Rule 60 in b ankruptcy pro c eedings). And, as fo r disqualific atio n, she to ld us her disqualific atio n m o tio n was set fo r hearing b efo re Judge H o ule. A s it turns o ut, the m o tio n was filed in an adversary pro c eeding, Jud g e H ou le denied the m o tio n, and H enry has no t appealed that o rder. In sho rt, Henry’s appeal was prem ature b ec ause it was filed b efo re, no t after, the filing o f and dec isio n o n th e O ST M o tio n. W e a c c o rdingly lac k jurisdic tio n to review the O ST O rder. K enda ll v. H

o m estea d D ev. Co ., Inc. (In re Ja ck R a ley Co nst., Inc.) , 17 F.3d 291, 294 (9th C ir. 1994) (“The prem ature no tic e here was no t valid b ec ause the m atter o f p r e -judgm ent interest was no t dec ided until O c tob er, lo ng after the no tic e o f appeal had b een filed.”). 6

6 And despi te the fact that multi pl e o r d e r s mi ght hav e been in Henr y’s thoughts (continued...) 7CONCL U SION

Based o n the fo rego ing, we DISMISS the appeal fo r lac k o f jurisdic tio n.

6 (...continued) when she fi led h er appeal, she a ddr esses none of t h e m in her opening br i ef; i f she had ar guments r elev ant to other or der s, she waiv ed them. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 986 n.2 (9th Ci r . 2009) (per cur i am) (appellate cour t “wi ll not or din ar i ly consi dermatter s on appeal that ar e not speci fi cally and di stin ctly r ai sed and ar gued in a ppellant’s opening br i ef”). Fur ther, H enr y fi led her noti ce of appeal on August 24, 2 017 and in h er main bankr uptcy case. The bankr u ptcy cour t enter ed no or der s in August 2017 in h e r m ain bankr uptcy case. And the noti c e of appeal could not r elate to the adv er sar y pr oceedings, as Henry fi led them on August 25, 2017. 8