Opinion ID: 4319313
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Miller contends that “the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to apply Illinois state law to [Miller] instead of controlling Pennsylvania state law exceeded the power granted to it as an Article I court.”4 Br. for Appellant at 22. She alleges, in turn, that the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court also exceeded their authority when they used the finding from the Zubras proceeding against her to grant summary judgment for Seitz. Like the 3 The District Court had appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. “In reviewing bankruptcy court decisions on appeal, we stand in the shoes of the district court and apply the same standard of review.” In re Klass, 858 F.3d 820, 827 (3d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, with regards to Miller’s appeal from the summary judgment order, we review the Bankruptcy Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings using a “clearly erroneous” standard. Am. Flint Glass Workers Union v. Anchor Resolution Corp., 197 F.3d 76, 80 (3d Cir. 1999). With regards to Miller’s appeal from the District Court’s denial of relief from judgment, we review for abuse of discretion. Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2014). 4 We assume that Miller’s contention that the Bankruptcy Court applied Illinois state law references the Court’s quotation of In re Scotchel, 491 B.R. 739, 743-44 (Bankr. N.D.W.V. 2013), which in turn cites In re Carlson, 263 F.3d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 2001) (applying Illinois law). 4 District Court, we interpret this argument as challenging the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court in the Zubras proceeding. We agree with the District Court that “a determination that Miller’s litigation fees were part of the bankruptcy estate was within the bankruptcy court’s subject-matter jurisdiction” in the Zubras proceeding. JA 14. Moreover, she never filed an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling in the Zubras proceeding. Therefore, we find this argument to be meritless and to have been waived as well.