2008 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 6-4-2008 

# In Re: Thom a s Olick P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-1595

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" In Re: Thom as Ol ick " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1066. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1066H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our t of I nt er nat i onal T r ade, * s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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. 05- 1595
I N R E : T HOMAS W. OL I CK , A ppel l ant
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C
. C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 06723) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e W i l l i am H . Y ohn
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

M ay8, 2008
B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui t J udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 4, 2008)

OP I NI ON

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antT hom as O l i ck, appea r i ng pro se , appea l s t he dec i s i on of t he D i s t r i ctO l i ck conc eded i n t he B ankrupt cyC our t t hatH ous e w as ent i t l ed t o at t or ney ’ s fee s 1 fort he per i od A pr i l 29, 1997 t hr ough M ar ch 20, 1998. 2 C o u rt a f f irm in g th e d e c isio n o f

th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt d e n y in g tw o m o tio n s f iled b yO lick : ( 1) a J anuary9, 2003 m ot i on underB ankrupt cyR ul e 9024 s eeki ng r el i ef f r om t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s M ar ch 1, 2001 deci s i on aw ar di ng at t or ney ’ s fee s t o O l i ck’ s for m er
couns el , A ppel l ee W i l l i am H ous e; and ( 2) a J anuary27, 2003 m ot i on underB ankrupt cy R ul es 9024 and 9023 s eeki ng r el i ef f r om bot h t he M ar ch 1, 2001 deci s i on and t he B ank rupt cyC ou rt ’s January16 , 20 03 decis i on enlar ging t he ti m e peri od for w hich H ou se
wa s e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he par t i es , fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ct s i s pr es um ed, and
w e setfort h o nlyt ho se fact s t hat ar e rel evan t t o o ur anal y si s. H ou se r epresent ed O l i ck in hi s C hap t er 13 ba nk rupt cyand rel at ed p roceedings, begi nni ng on A pr i l 29, 1997. O n M ar ch 20, 1998, O l i ck i nfor m ed H ous e t hathe i nt ended to d isc h a rg e h im a s c o u n se l, bu t n o tw ith sta n d in g th is a p p a re n t rift, H o u se c o n tin u e d to
r epr es entO l i ck unt i l D ece m ber7, 1998, w hen O l i ck di s char ged hi m . O n J anuary21, 1999, H ous e fi l ed a f

ee a ppl i cat i on w i t h t he B ankrupt cyC our t , s eeki ng fee s fort he per i od A pr i l 29, 1997 t hr ough D ece m ber7, 1998. O l i ck obj ect ed, cl ai m i ng t hathe had t er m i nat ed H ous e on M ar ch 20, 1998, and t hatH ous e w as notent i t l ed t o at t or ney ’ s fee s aft ert hatdat e. O n J anuary25, 1999, befor e H ous e’ s m ot i on forat t or ney ’ s fee s had bee n 13

deci ded, O l i ck’ s C hapt er13 pl an w as confi r m ed byt he B ankrupt cyC our t . T he pl an, p re p a re d b yO lick , “p ro v id e [ d ] f o r th e p a y m e n t in f

u ll o f a ll cla im s e n tit led to p rio rity under11 U
. S. C
. § 507 and al l uns ecur ed cl ai m s ” ( A pp. 1) , buti t m ade no pr ovi s i on for th e p a y m e n t o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s to H o u s e . O n J anuary20, 2000, t he B ankrupt cyC our t aw ar ded fe es t o H ous e fort he per i od A pr i l 29, 1997 t hr ough M ar ch 20, 1998, buthel d t hatanyw or k per for m ed byH ous e af t er M ar ch 20, 1998 w as on a vol unt eerbas i s . O l i ck moved for r econs i der at i on, and on M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 1 , the B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt re a f f irm e d its c o n c lu sio n th a t H o u se w a s e n tit led to at t or ney ’ s fee s , buti text ended the per i od forw hi ch he w as ent i t l ed t o compensa t i on th ro u g h M a rc h 2 4 , 1 9 9 8
. O l i ck appe al ed t he M ar ch 1, 2001 deci s i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . O n M ar ch 19, 2 0 0 2 , the D istric t C o u rt a f f irm e d in p a rt, b u t re m a n d e d to th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt to
e x p la in th e b a s is f

o r i ts f in d in g th a t H o u s e s e rv e d a s a v o lu n te e r a f te r M a rc h 2 4 , 1 9 9 8
. O n J anuary9, 2003, befor e t he B ankrupt cyC our t had ent er ed a de ci s i on on r emand, O li ck fil ed a R u le 90 2 4 m o ti o n (t h e “ Jan u ary9 M o ti o n ”) w ith the B an k rup tcyC o u rt
s eeki ng r el i ef f

r om t he M ar ch 1, 2001 deci s i on. O n J anuary16, 2003, t he B ankrupt cy C our tconcl uded t hati thad pr evi ous l yer r ed i n fi ndi ng t hatH ous e had s er ved on a
v o lun teer b asis af

ter M arc h 2 4 , 1 9 9 8 an d ruled that h e w as th ere fo re e n ti tl ed to attorn ey ’s fee s fort he per i od A pr i l 29, 1997 t hr ough D ece m ber7, 1998. O n J anuary27, 2003, O l i ck fi l ed a mot i on underR ul es 9024 and 9023 ( t he “J anuary27 M ot i on”) , s eeki ng r el i efO l i ck’ s openi ng br i ef i dent i fi es ei ght i s s ues : ( 1) “[W ] as t he or derdeny i ng 2 A ppel l ee’ s obj ect i on [t o confi r m at i on of t he C hapt er13 pl an] a fi nal or derand t hus r es jud icata to h is objecti o n that co n firm ati o n o f th e P lan w as il lega l?” ; ( 2 ) “D id A p p ell ee ’s Pr oof of Cl ai m and Fee A ppl i cat i on become a ‘ cl ai m ’ att he t i m e i t w as fi l ed orw hen t her e w as a fi nal or deron A ppel l ant ’ s obj ect i ons t her et o?”; ( 3) “Shoul d t he or der s under appea l be vac at ed bec aus e t heyvi ol at e t he pr ovi s i ons of St atut e @ 206 r ender i ng t he st at utor yl ang uag e of B
. R . 13 27 (a) , 13 28 , 13 30 (a) , 80 02 , 90 23 , and 90 24 superfl uo us, m eani ngl es s ori r r el evant ?”; ( 4) “I n a bankrupt cypr ocee di ng, i s di s coveryper m i t t ed r egar di ng t he val i di t yof a c ont es t ed cl ai m agai ns t t he B ankrupt cyE s t at e?”; ( 5) “D i d t he b a n k ru p tcy co u rt a b u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it ref u se d to a llo w th e a d m iss io n o f n e w ly obt ai ned evi dence of A ppel l ee’ s fr audul ent . . . m i s conductw i t hi n one y earof entr yof an or der ?”; ( 6) “W hen t he cour t s cont i nue t o amend t hei r or der s r egar di ng t he per i od for w hi ch admi ni s t r at i ve fe es s hal l be aw ar ded, i s a fi nal appea l abl e or derent er ed w hen t he l as tamendm enti s m ade?”; ( 7) “W hen t he A ppel l ee w i t hdr ew hi s Pr oof of Cl ai m w i t h t he at t ache d s um m ar yof admi ni s t r at i ve expe ns es , w as t he i s s ue of hi s compensa t i on M oot 4 fr om bot h t he M ar ch 1, 2001 deci s i on and t he J anuary16, 2003 deci s i on. A ft era hea r i ng, t he B ankrupt cyC our ton N ovember 14, 2003 deni ed t he J anuary9 M ot i on and t he J anuary27 M ot i on on t he mer i t s and, t o t he ext entt heyr el at ed t o t he M ar ch 1, 2001 deci s i on, as unt i m el y . T he D i s t r i ctC our t aff i r m ed byor derof Februar y9, 2005. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 158( d) ( 1)
. I n r evi ew i ng t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “w e s t and i n t he s hoes of t he di s t r i ctcour t , appl y i ng a clea rl yerro n eo u s stan d ard to the b an k rup tcyco u rt ’s find ing s o f f ac t and a p lena ry
s t andar d t o t hatcour t ’ s l egal concl us i ons . ” I n r e IT G r oup, I

nc. , 448 F. 3d 661, 667 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). A lth o u g h O lick ra ise s s e v e ra l issu e s o n a p p e a l, ultim a tely
ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o w het hert he B ankrupt cyC our t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he J anuary9 M ot i on and t he J anuary27 M ot i on. See McD ow el lv. P hilad el ph i a Hou s. 2beca us e t her e w as no l ongera cl ai m agai ns t t he bankrupt cyes t at e?”; and ( 8) “W as

D ebt or s ’ M ot i on t o D i s char ge C ouns el
. . . ‘ w r i t t en not i ce’ t hathe w as di s char ged as re q u ir e d b yth e R e ta in e r A g re e m e n t? ” (O lic k O p e n in g B r. 1 -2 .) W e are r equ i red t o co nst rue hi s pr o s e b ri e f lib e ra lly, see U

nit ed S t ates v. O t ero , 502 F. 3d 331, 334 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , and i n s o doi ng w e fi nd t hathe al s o has chal l enged the B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s find ing o f u n ti m eli n ess a s to the M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 1 d ec isi o n . M o reo v er, w e in te rp re t a ll th e is s u e s ra is e d b yO lic k a s b e a ri n g o n th e u ltim a te in q u ir y , i
. e. , w het her t he B ankrupt cyC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he J anuary9 M ot i on and t he J anuary27 M ot i on. 5 A ut h. , 42 3 F
. 3d 23 3, 23 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( den i al of R ule 59(e) m oti on revi ew ed fo r abuse
o f d iscreti o n ); B r ow n v. P hi l adel phi a H ous . A ut h. , 350 F. 3d 338, 342 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( deni al of R ul e 60( b) m ot i on r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on)
. “A n abus e of di s cr et i on
m a yo c c u r a s a re su lt o f a n e rra n t co n c lu sio n o f law , an im p ro p e r a p p lica tio n o f law to fac t , ora cl ear l yer r oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct . ” Mc D o w e ll , 423 F. 3d at238. W e conc l ude t hatt her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on. III . 

### O l i c k ’ s J anu ary

9 M o t i o nw a s t i t l e da“ B . R . 9 0 2 4 M o t i o nf o r R e l i e f F r o m A Judgm e nt or Or de r . ” Supp. App. at

155. Hi s J anuary

27 Mot i on wa s s tyl e d “ B. R. 9024 & 9023 Mot i ons for

aNe w Tr i a l , Am e ndm e nt of Judgm e nt

and Re l i e f Fr om

A Judgm e nt or Order.”Supp . App . at 161 . B.R. 902 3 p rovides t hat Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (“Rule 59”)
a ppl i e s i n c a s e s unde r

the Bankr

upt c y Code , wi th l i m i t e d e xc e pt i ons , and B. R. 9024 p ro v id es th at F ed . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (“Ru le 6 0 ”) ap p lies incases un d er th e C o d e, w ith sp ecif iedex cep tio n s. Ru l e 5 9 s t ip u l at e s th at

a“ m o t i o nf

o r an e wtr i a lm

u s t b e f i l e dn o l at e r

th an1 0 d aysIn th is m o tio n O lick a rg u e d th a t th e C o u rt’s c o n f irm a tio n o rd e r w a s c o n c lu siv e a s to 3 H o u se ’s e n tit lem e n t to f e e s a n d th a t th e C o u rt e rre d in its M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 1 o rd e r w h e n it a w a rd e d H o u s e f

e e s n o t p ro v id e d f

o r i n th e P la n . S u p p . A p p . a t 1 5 7 -5 9
. O n J anuary18, 2002, O l i ck had f i l ed a pr i orm ot i on s eeki ng r el i ef f r om t he 4 B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s M ar ch 1, 2001 or der
. T he C our t di s m i s s ed t hatm ot i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e appe al of t he M ar ch 1, 2001, or derw as s t i l l pendi ng. A pp. 26- 27. 6 

### a ft e r the e ntry of judgm e nt ” and that

a“ m ot i on t o a l t e r

or am e nd ajudgm e nt

m us t be f iledn o later th an1 0 d ay s af ter th e en try

o f th e j u d g m en t.” F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 9 (b ), (e). Ru le 60( b) l i s t s t he gr ounds forgr ant i ng r el i ef f r om a j udgm ent , and R ul e 60( c) pr ovi des t hatanym ot i on underR ul e 60( b) “mustbe made w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e” a nd, i n any
ev en t, w ith resp ec t t o the f ir st th ree g rou n d s fo r reli ef , “n o m o re tha n a y ea r af ter t h e e n try
o f th e jud g m en t . . . . ” F ed
. R . C iv. P. 60 (c)(1). 

### Olic k f il ed his J anuary

9 M otion rou gh ly

22 m on ths a fter

the Bankrup tc y

Co urt’ s Marc h 1 , 200 1 o rder
. Th e Dis tric t Court and B ankrup tc y

Co urt both rec og nize d that 3 

### Ol i c k ha d pr e vi ous l y

r a i s e d the i s s ue s the r e i n i n an e ar l i e r m ot i on for

r e c ons i de r at i on fi l e d J anuary

18, 2002. That

e ar l i e r m ot i on wa s fi l e d t e n m onths a ft e r the Mar c h 1, 4 

### 2001 or de r . Howe ve r , the Bankr upt c y Court r ul e d that , e ve n gi vi ng Ol i c k the “ be ne fi t of th e d o ub t” an db asin g tim elin ess o nth at earlier motio n , th e tenm o n thd elay w as n o t a “reaso n ab le tim e,” as th e Ru le requ ires. T h e D istrict C o urt sim ilarly f o un dn o j u stif

iab le
reaso nf o r th e d elay

an dru ledth at th e claim s p resen tedinth at m o tio n“[ w ere] w ith in [O li ck’s ] reac h w hen the order was e nter ed onMarc h 1 , 200 1.” App . 50. We ho ld that thi s r ul i ng wa s not

an abus e of the Court ’ s di s c r e t i on.I n hi s J anuary27 M ot i on, O l i ck cha l l enges t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s fac t ual fi ndi ng 5 conce r ni ng t he t er m i nat i on dat e, s eeks a hea r i ng i n w hi ch t o offe r fur t hert es t i m onyon th a t m a tte r, a n d s e e k s to c o m p e l f u rt h e r d is c o v e ry c o n c e rn in g H o u s e ’s f e e . O l i ck fur t heral l eges befor e us t hatH ous e padde d hi s fee cl ai m byi ncl udi ng t he ent i r e t i m e cons um ed bya phone c al l w hen t hatcal l w as devot ed i n par t t o anot her 7 

### I n the J anuary

27 Mot i on, Ol i c k a ga i n r a i s e d the s am e i s s ue s c onc e rni ng the Bankr up t c y Co ur t ’ s Mar c h 1 , 20 01 or de r . Ol i c k f i l e d h i s J anu ary

27 Mo t i onne ar l y

two years afte r the Bankruptcy Co urt’ s Mar ch 1, 20 01 order. Fo r the sam e r ea sons disc usse d abov e, it was not an abuse of d is cr et ion f or the Bankrup tc y

Co urt andthe Dis tric t Court to f in dth is d elay

inth e ch allen g e to th e M arch1 , 2 0 0 1 o rd er unreaso n ab le as w ell. IV . As we have no te d, Olic k’s J anuary 27 Mo ti onchal le ng ed the Bankrup tc y Co urt’ s order of January

16 , 200 3, as wellas it s Mar ch 21 , 200 1 o rder . To the exte nt the J anuary 27 Mo ti onchal le ng ed that late r order , i t was no t untim el y . The sole effect of the Janu ar y 16 , 200 3 o rder

and the ac com

panying m em orandu m

op inion w as to withdraw an earli er fa c t ua lfi ndi ng of the Bankr

upt c y Court that Hous e ’ s r e pr e s e nt at i on ha d t e rm i nat e d on M arch2 4 , 1 9 9 8 an dsub stitute a f actu al f in d in g th at it h adlastedun til D ecem b er 7 , 1 9 9 8
. As a r es ult, the only

new m atte r i n the Janu ar y 27 Mo ti onis an atta ck ona finding of fact
r e gar di ng the dat e of t e rm i nat i on. W e a gr e e wi th the Bankr upt c y and Di s tr i c t

Court s that

Ol i c k ha s i de nt i fi e d no g ro un df o r relief f ro m th e B an krup tcy

C o urt’s Janu ary

1 6 , 2 0 0 3 o rd er th at is co g n izab le
un de r e i the r Ru l e 59 or

Ru l e 60 (b)
. Ac c or di ng l y , we wi l la ff i rm the i r de ni a lof r e l i e f. 5m at t er . T hi s cl ai m i s bas ed on an a ffi davi t t hatw as notexec ut ed unt i l J ul y8, 2003, and

th is g ro u n d w a s n o t as se rte d in th e Ja n u a ry2 7 M o tio n . M o re o v e r, th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt, w hen i tden i ed O l i ck’s m oti on s, decli ned t o co nsi der t he July8, 20 03 affidavi t becau se t he af fi antw as notm ade a vai l abl e forcr os s - exami nat i on byH ous e, and bec aus e t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned t her ei n had bee n avai l abl e t o O l i ck w hen t he C our t ent er ed t he M ar ch 1, 2001 and J anuary16, 2003 or der s . T he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s r efus al t o cons i der th e Ju ly8 , 2 0 0 3 a f

f id a v it w a s a u th o riz e d b yF e d . R . C iv . P . 4 3 , m a d e a p p lica b le to bankrupt cycour t s byB . R . 9017, w hi ch pr ovi ded att he t i m e: [w ] hen a mot i on i s bas ed on fa ct s notappea r i ng of r ecor d t he cour t m ay heart he mat t eron aff

i davi t s . . . butt he cour t m aydi r ectt hatt he mat t erbe hear d w hol l yorpar t l yon or al t es t i m onyor depos i t i on. F ed
. R . C iv. P. 43 (e) (si n ce am en d ed ). 

### V. The Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s or de r

of Fe br uary 9, 2005 wi l lbe a ffi rm e d.