Opinion ID: 6344822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Waldos’ Additional Arguments

Text: The Waldos challenge the bankruptcy court’s award of attorney’s fees. The bankruptcy court ordered the fees more than a month after the Waldos had filed their notice of appeal. The Waldos did not file a supplemental notice of appeal, a step necessary to give us “jurisdiction over an attorneys’ fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal.” EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1250 (10th Cir. 1999). So we lack jurisdiction to consider the award of attorney’s fees. The Waldos make several claims that appear to challenge the bankruptcy court’s ruling on summary judgment. But that ruling isn’t at issue, so we cannot consider the Waldos’ challenge to the grant of summary judgment. See Lang v. Lang (In re Lang), 414 F.3d 1191, 1195-96 (10th Cir. 2005). The Waldos allege many problems with the district court’s analysis. They argue, for example, that the district court erred by ignoring evidence and by taking judicial notice of several documents. We have independently reviewed the bankruptcy court’s rulings, disregarding the documents noticed by the district court, and we find no abuse of discretion. 9 Appellate Case: 21-4050 Document: 010110689967 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 10 Affirmed. Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach