2009 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 9-2-2009 

# In Re: T a y lor 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 . 07-3506

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_2009

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 2009 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: T a y lor " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 720. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/720NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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. 07- 3506

_____________ I N R E: JO S E P H S T E V E N T A Y L O R , III ; LI NDA M CCOM BS TAYLOR, DAV I D M . TAYLOR; M I CH E L L E T AYL OR v. JO S E P H S T E P H E N T A Y L O R , III ; LI NDA M CCOM BS TAYLOR, A p p e llan ts

_____________ O n A p p ea l from 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 ( N o. 07- cv- 00188) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S , an d H A R D IM A N , C irc u it Judg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember2, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. J os eph and Li nda Tay l or( the “de bt or s ”) appea l fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der deny i ng a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. W e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on, a n d w e w ill th e re f

o re d ism iss th e a p p e a l. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f lyre c ite the essenti al fact s. O n M ar ch 3, 2006, the B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed a de faul tj udgm entagai ns tthe d e b t o r s . On Au g u s t1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d e b t o r s f i l e d a mo t i o n t o s e ta s i d e th a tj u d g me n t . On A ugus t18, 2006, the B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed an or derdeny i ng the mot i on. O n A ug ust28 , 20 06 , the d ebtor s fi l ed a m oti on for r econ si derat i on of the A ug ust 18, 2006 or der . O n O ct ober6, 2006, the B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed an or derdeny i ng t he m ot i on. O n O ct ober16, 2006, the debt or s fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the O ct ober 6, 2006 or der . I n t hatm ot i on, the debt or s m ade a r gum ent s s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o the o n es m ad e in th eir fir st m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n (fil ed o n A u g u st 28 , 2 0 0 6 ). C o m p are A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 176- 80 w i th A pp. 133- 34. O n D ece m ber20, 2006, the B ankrupt cy C our tent er ed an or derdeny i ng the mot i on.T he cr edi t or s di d notr ai s e the t i m el i nes s of the debt or s ’ not i ce of appea l fr om 1 the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng the s econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on i n any su b m iss io n s to th e D istric t C o u rt. In se v e ra l d e c isio n s is su e d a f ter o u r o p in io n in S h a re h o ld e rs, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t ce rta in F e d e ra l R u les w h ich p u rp o rt to pr es cr i be mandat oryfi l i ng condi t i ons ar e not“j ur i s di ct i onal ” and thatdefe ns es bas ed upon fai l ur e t o compl yw i th t hem can be w ai ved. See B ow l es v. R us s el l , 551 U . S. 205, 209- 13 ( 2007) ; E berhartv. U ni t ed St at es , 546 U . S. 12, 25- 27 ( 2005) ; K ontr i ck v. R y an, 5 4 0 U .S . 4 4 3 , 4 5 2 -5 6 (2 0 0 4 ). S h a re h o ld e rs , h o w e v e r, r e m a in s g o o d la w . W e no t e tha tno ne of

tho s e Sup r e me Courtc a s e s c on s i de r e d Fe d. R. Bank r . P. 8 0 0 2 ( a ) . W e a l s o n o t e th a t , u n l i k e th e ru l e s h e l d n o n - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i n th o s e c a s e s , F e d . R. B ankr . P. 8002( a) ’ s t i m e l i m i thas i t s r oot s i n a congr es s i onal l y - enac t ed s t atut e, s ee Fed. R . B ankr . P. 8002 advi s orycomm i t t ee’ s not e ( s t at i ng thatFed. R . B ankr . P. 8002 i s an 3 O n D ece m ber29, 2006, the debt or s fi l ed a not i ce of appea l of the D ece m ber20, 2 0 0 6 o rde r. T h e D istri ct C o u rth ea rd th e a p p ea l on the m erit s an d af firm ed . T h e d eb tors th e n a p p e a led th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r to th is C o u rt. II. W e have an i ndepende ntobl i gat i on t o ens ur e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the mat t erpr es ent l yon appea l . U ni t ed St at es v. H i ggs , 504 F. 3d 456, 457 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “Thi s courthas an obl i gat i on t o i nqui r e s ua s pont e . . . i nt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the D i stri ctC ou rtt o en t er the o rderon app eal . ”). T o thi s end, w e m ust t ake i tupon our s el ves t o eval uat e the t i m el i nes s of the debt or s ’ not i ce of appea l fr om t he or derdeny i ng thei rs econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on, beca us e “[ t ] he fa i l ur e t o fi l e a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l [fr om a B ankrupt cyC our tor der ] cr eat es a j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct b arring ap p ell ate rev iew . ” S h are h o lders v . S o u n d R ad io, I n c., 1 0 9 F . 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 1“ a d a p t a t i o n ” o f F e d . R. Ap p . P . 4 ( a ) ) ; Bo wl e s , 5 5 1 U. S . a t2 1 3 ( e x p l a i n i n g th a tF e d . R. A p p . P . 4 (a )(1 )(A )’s tim e lim it fo r f ili n g a n o tice o f

a p p e a l f ro m a D istric t C o u rt o rd e r is s etfor th i n 21 U . S. C . § 2107) – a fa ct orthatthe Supr eme C our ts t at ed couns el s i n favor of hol di ng the rul e t o be j ur i s di ct i onal , s ee Bow l es , 551 U . S. at212- 13. T her efor e, Shar ehol der s r emai ns contr ol l i ng pr ece denti n thi s C i r cui t . I n addi t i on, everycourtof appea l s t o have a ddr es s ed the j ur i s di ct i onal s t atus of Fed. R . B ankr . P. § 8002( a) i n the w a k e o f o n e o r m o re c a se s f

ro m th e B o w les -E b e rh a rt-K o n trick trio h a s h e ld th a t th e ru le is i n d ee d juri sd ict ion al. S ee W iersm a v . B an k o f th e W est, 4 8 3 F . 3 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 8 (9th C ir . 2007) ; I n r e Sal em, 465 F. 3d 767, 774 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ; Si emon v. E m i gr antSavs . B ank, 4 2 1 F . 3 d 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Fi nal l y , i ts houl d be not ed that , w hen w e di r ect ed the part i es t o fi l e s uppl ement al br i efi ng on t he i s s ue of t i m el i nes s , i ncl udi ng w hetheran unt i m el ynot i ce of appea l pr ecl udes appel l at e r evi ew , the debt or s di d notar gue thatFed. R . B ankr . P. 8002( a) i s not ju ri s d ic tio n a l. T h e ys im p ly ar g u e d th a t th e n o tic e o f a p p e a l w a s tim e ly u n d e r t h a t ru le . See D ebt or s Supp. B r . 1- 3. 4 T o be t i m el y , a not i ce of appea l fr om a B ankrupt cyC our tor derm us tbe fi l ed no l at erthan 10 day s aft erthe or deri s ent er ed. Fed. R . B ankr . P. 8002( a) . B ut , fi l i ng a m o tio n to a m e n d o r a lter ju d g m e n t u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 9 re -sta rts th e 1 0 -d a yc lo c k : th e 1 0 -d a yp e ri o d b e g in s to ru n f ro m th e d e n ia l o f

th e m o tio n to a m e n d o r a lte r j u d g m e n t. F ed. R . B ank r. P . 80 02 (b) (2) . A m oti on for r econ si derat i on i s general l ytreat ed as a m ot i on t o amend oral t erj udgm entunderFed. R . C i v. P. 59. See Turne rv. E ver s , 726 F . 2 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) (cit ing ca ses). W e hav e nev er s qu arel yrul ed u po n w hether , i f t he B ank rupt cyC ou rtden i es a m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, and i f the partyw ho l os tthatm ot i on fi l es and l os es a s econd m ot i on forr econs i der at i on – a mot i on t o r econs i derthe or derdeny i ng the fi r s tm ot i on –I f the s econd mot i on di d notr e- s t artthe 10- dayappea l per i od, the debt or s ’ not i ce 2 of appe al w as unt i m el ybeca us e the 10- dayappea l per i od w oul d nothave be gun t o run unt i l O ct ober6, 2006, and the not i ce of appea l w as fi l ed more than a mont h l at er , on D ece m ber29, 2006. 5 the 10- dayper i od “r e- s t art s ” and runs fr om the deni al of thats econd mot i on. W e have , h o w e v e r, c o n s id e re d a h ig h ly an a lo g o u s s itu a tio n . A not i ce of

appea l of a D i s tr i ctC our tor derm us tbe fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our tno la te r t h a n 3 0 d a y s a f

te r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt e n te rs th e o rd e r. F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 1 )( A ). F ili n g a m o tio n to a m e n d o r a lter ju d g m e n t u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 9 , h o w e v e r, re -sta rts the 30- daycl ock: the 30- dayper i od begi ns t o run fr om the deni al of the mot i on for rec o n side rati o n . F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(4)(A )(i v ). In T u rne r, w e h eld th at, if a d istri ct co u rt den i es a m oti on for r econ si derat i on , and i f t he p artyw ho l ostthat m oti on fi l es and loses a s econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on, the 30- daycl ock does notr e- s t arti f “the fa ctual and le g a l is s u e s s u rr o u n d in g th e [ f ir s t] m o tio n a n d th e [ s e c o n d ] m o tio n a re ro u g h ly sim ila r . . .

. ” 726 F. 2d 112, 114 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . W e per cei ve no r eas on – and, i n r es pons e t o our r eques tt o fi l e s uppl ement al br i efi ng on the t i m el i nes s i s s ue, the debt or s have not p r o v i d e d o n e – t o tr e a tth e B a n k ru p t c y C o u r tc o n t e x ta n y d i f f e r e n t l y. W e m u st d ism iss th e d e b to rs’ a p p e a l if th e se c o n d m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n d id notr e- s t artthe 10- dayappea l per i od. T hi s i s beca us e, i f the s econd mot i on di d notr es t artthe 10- dayappea l per i od, the debt or s ’ not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el y , and i f the 2 no t i ce of app eal w as unti m el y , the D i stri ctC ou rtl acked j uri sdi ct i on and w e m ustdis m i ss6

the appe al . See, e. g. , O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 121 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (d ism iss in g a p p e a l af

ter h o ld in g th e d istric t co u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n ); In re W h ite B e a u ty V iew , Inc . , 8 4 1 F . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (sam e). T h e iss u e , the n , is w h e th e r “ th e f a c tu a l an d leg a l issu e s s u rro u n d in g th e [ f irst] m o t i o n a n d th e [ s e c o n d ] m o t i o n a r e r o u g h l ys i m i l a r. . . . ” T u rn e r , 7 2 6 F . 2 d a t1 1 4 . We hol d thattheyar e. T he debt or s i n t he s econd mot i on s oughtes s ent i al l yt o r e- ar gue the cl ai m s theym ade i n t he fi r s tm ot i on. T heyadded onl yone new cl ai m , w hi ch w as bas ed upon the al l eged i ncompet ence of the att orneyhandl i ng the fi r s tm ot i on. C om par e A pp. 176- 80 w i th A pp. 133- 34. T he s econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on, ther efor e, di d notr e- s t artthe 10- day appea l per i od. T hus , the debt or s ’ not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el y , and, as a r es ul t , the D istric t C o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n , so w e m u st d ism iss th e a p p e a l. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill d ism iss th e a p p e a l.