Opinion ID: 415491
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal, Jurisdiction and Justiciability

Text: 9 Martin-Trigona argues first that Judge Daly's decision is not a final judgment and therefore is not appealable at this time. Additionally, he asserts that no lawful appeal has been taken from the district court's order releasing him from custody. Finally, he maintains that this controversy is now moot. Each of these contentions is premised on what Martin-Trigona aptly characterizes as the tortured procedural history of this bizarre case. Martin-Trigona neglects to mention his responsibility for the peculiarities of this appeal. We consider herein only those arguments imbued with some arguable merit. 10 Martin-Trigona contends that the decision of Judge Daly is not a final judgment for purposes of appealability. He asserts that subsequent actions taken by the district court in connection with this case support his view. 9 This argument is meritless. An order granting habeas corpus relief is final and subject to appellate review. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 (1976); see Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.S. 255, 276-77, 44 S.Ct. 103, 106-107, 68 L.Ed. 293 (1923). 11 Martin-Trigona next argues that a proper appeal was never taken from Judge Daly's order. This claim is also groundless. Notice of appeal from the judgment granting Martin-Trigona's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 22, 1982. The notice was filed on behalf of the named defendant, Bankruptcy Judge Shiff, and was signed by Irving H. Perlmutter/Attorney for the Defendant. Mr. Perlmutter is the attorney for the trustee of the corporate estate. Martin-Trigona argues that Attorney Perlmutter is not Judge Shiff's attorney, that he filed the appeal without Judge Shiff's consent, and that as a consequence, no lawful appeal has been filed. We disagree. Although the trustees were not named parties in the district court, they did participate in those proceedings. In fact, the district court ordered both trustees, being the real parities [sic] in interest, to respond to Martin-Trigona's application for habeas corpus relief. 10 Record at Doc. 16. Cf. Beery v. Turner, 680 F.2d 705, 713 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 449, 74 L.Ed.2d 604 (1982) (district court did not err in designating the trustee in bankruptcy to act as plaintiff in hearing to determine the bankrupt's status). 12 The general rule is that one who was not a party of record before the trial court may not appeal that court's judgment. Washoe Tribe v. Greenley, 674 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1982). But there are situations where a nonparty is allowed to appeal if the trial court's judgment has affected the nonparty's interest. West v. Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp., 70 F.2d 621, 623-24 (2d Cir.1934). 13 This Circuit's decision in West is on point. There a corporate receiver petitioned the district court for an order approving modifications made to a corporate obligation. An unsecured creditor of the corporation who received notice of the petition appeared in the district court to object to the proposed order. After several hearings, the district court granted the order. The disgruntled creditor appealed even though he was not a party to the proceedings in the district court. Judge Learned Hand observed that generally speaking no person, not a party to a suit, may appeal. Id. at 623; see Sperry Rand Corp. v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., 317 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.1963); United States v. McFaddin Express, Inc., 310 F.2d 799, 801 (2d Cir.1962). Nevertheless, Judge Hand held that the creditor should be allowed to appeal because he was brought into the suit at the invitation of the court and because there was no doubt but that the court's order affected his interests. West, 70 F.2d at 624. 14 Like the creditor in West, the trustees participated in the proceedings below by filing, at the direction of the court, responses to Martin-Trigona's habeas corpus petition. It was clear to the district court, as it is to us, that the trustees are the real parties-in-interest. They have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that Martin-Trigona testifies to the location of certain assets, books, and records that are necessary to the administration of the estates. Because the trustees participated in the proceedings below and because their interests were affected by the district court's order, we find that the trustees have standing to bring this appeal. S.E.C. v. Lincoln Thrift Association, 577 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.1978). 15 There is another reason for permitting the trustees to pursue this appeal. Unlike the decisions cited by Martin-Trigona in which the equities of the case weighed against allowing non-parties to appeal, see Washoe Tribe v. Greenley, 674 F.2d at 818; United States v. Conforte, 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981), the circumstances of this case strongly favor the trustees. After the district court ordered the trustees to respond to Martin-Trigona's petition, all further proceedings were stayed, thereby denying the trustees the opportunity to file additional claims of law in opposition to the petition. 11 The stay remained in effect until April 19, 1982, when Judge Daly rendered his decision. Thus, after the trustees were compelled to join in the proceedings as the real parties-in-interest, the district court foreclosed any meaningful participation by them. Moreover, the stay imposed by the trial court made futile any effort by the trustees to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c). See S.E.C. v. Lincoln Thrift Association, 577 F.2d at 603. We view these circumstances as an additional compelling reason for the Court to entertain an appeal by the trustees. 16 We next consider Martin-Trigona's claim that this appeal must be dismissed as moot. The mootness doctrine is grounded on the case or controversy requirement of Article III. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). The hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed. Martin-Trigona identifies the controversy in this case as centering on the power of the bankruptcy judge to imprison for civil contempt. In his view, this controversy no longer exists because Bankruptcy Judge Shiff has now recused himself from the case and because the bankruptcy court has, in response to Judge Daly's order, certified the contemptuous conduct to the district court pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 920(a)(4). 17 Martin-Trigona misstates the nature of the controversy. The dispute is not between Martin-Trigona and Judge Shiff; no relief is sought from Judge Shiff personally. The true controversy is between Martin-Trigona and the trustees, and it concerns Martin-Trigona's persistent and deliberate refusal to testify in connection with the administration of his bankrupt personal and corporate estates. Judge Shiff's decision to recuse himself from the underlying bankruptcy cases clearly does not resolve the dispute between the trustees and Martin-Trigona. 18 More troublesome is the bankruptcy court's certification of Martin-Trigona's contemptuous conduct to the district court shortly after Judge Daly's decision. Even this, however, does not moot the controversy because the relief granted by Judge Daly is not irreversible, as our disposition of this appeal demonstrates. Martin-Trigona is free solely because of Judge Daly's decision; his present freedom is not guaranteed by the bankruptcy court's certification. We view the certification as an attempt by the bankruptcy court to comply with Judge Daly's ruling--a ruling contested by the trustees in this appeal. As to the trustees, the controversy remains. The dispute will not be resolved until Martin-Trigona purges himself of contempt. S.E.C. v. Radio Hill Mines Co., 479 F.2d 4, 7-8 (2d Cir.1973). The present appeal was properly submitted to this Court, is within our jurisdiction, and presents a justiciable controversy.