Court Opinion

ID: 2964909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:51.722339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:57.291246
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1890

                             JOSE ENRIQUE COLON-SANTANA,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                            JULIO MARTINEZ-MALAVE, ET AL.,

                                      Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jose Enrique Colon Santana on brief pro se.
            __________________________
            Carlos E. Aquilar Perez and Woods & Woods on brief for appellees.
            _______________________     _____________

                                 ____________________

                                   August 22, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Jose Enrique Colon-Santana appeals from the
                 __________

            district  court's dismissal of  his appeal from  a bankruptcy

            court order  imposing costs and attorneys' fees  on Colon and

            his  client.   The district  court dismissed  the appeal  and

            affirmed  the bankruptcy court's denial of appellant's Motion

            for Reconsideration  of the  Judgment ("the  Motion") on  the

            ground that the notice of appeal had been untimely filed.

                 Appellant  concedes that the  notice of appeal  from the

            district court order awarding costs and attorneys' fees ("the

            Judgment") was  untimely  filed under  Bankruptcy Rule  8001.

            That Rule requires  an appeal to be  filed within 10 days  of

            the judgment  appealed from.    The Judgment  was entered  on

            April  2, 1993.  The Notice of  Appeal was filed on September

            21,  1993.  "Untimely notice of  appeal deprives the district

            court  of  jurisdiction  to  review  the  bankruptcy  court's

            order."  In re Abdallah, 778 F.2d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1985).
                     ______________

                 In  an  effort  to  overcome  this formidable  obstacle,

            appellant  argues  that  the  bankruptcy  court  abused   its

            discretion in not granting the  Motion.  He contends that his

            failure to  file a timely  notice of appeal should  have been

            excused because the court clerk had mailed notice of entry of

            the  Judgment to  the  wrong address  and  appellant had  not

            received it until after the appeal period had expired.1
                                                                  1

                                
            ____________________

               1   The  appeal  to  the district  court  was timely  with
               1
            respect to the  bankruptcy court's order denying  the Motion,
            which order was entered on September 13, 1993.

                                         -2-

                 1. Bankruptcy Rule 8002(c)
                    _______________________

                 Even if, as  appellant suggests, we construe  the Motion

            as a request for an extension of time  to appeal, pursuant to

            Bankruptcy  Rule 8002(c),  the request  was  untimely.   "The

            wording of Rule 8002(c) makes it clear that once 30 days have

            expired from  the entry of  the order without some  notice of

            appeal  having been  filed (either  before  or following  the

            expiration of  the ten-day  period), no  appeal  may ever  be

            taken,  even  upon  a  showing  of excusable  neglect."    10

            Lawrence P. King,  Collier on Bankruptcy   8002.09  (15th ed.
                               _____________________

            rev.  1997); see,  e.g., In  re  Martinez, 97  B.R. 578,  580
                         ___   ____  ________________

            (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1989), aff'd,  919 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1990).

            Neither the Motion nor the Notice of Appeal were filed within

            30  days of  the  entry  of the  Judgment.   Therefore,  Rule

            8002(c) did not  authorize the extension of the appeal period

            in  this  case,  even if  Colon  had  demonstrated "excusable

            neglect."

                 2. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)
                    __________________________

                 In  the alternative, appellant  seems to argue  that the

            Motion should have been construed as made pursuant to Fed. R.

            Civ.  P. 60(b),  which has  been  used in  some instances  to

            revive lost rights of appeal.  See Scola v. Boat Frances, R.,
                                           ___ _____    _________________

            Inc., 618 F.2d 147,  152 (1st Cir.  1980).  Rule 60(b),  made
            ____

            applicable  to  bankruptcy  cases  by  Bankruptcy Rule  9024,

            permits  a motion for  relief from a judgment  or order to be

                                         -3-

            filed "within a  reasonable time" after judgment enters.   We

            assume for  the purposes of  this appeal that the  Motion was

            pursuant  to Rule  60(b)  and  that it  was  filed "within  a

            reasonable time."

                 Appellant's  reliance   on  Rule  60(b)   is  misplaced,

            however,  where  lack   of  notice  is  the  reason  for  the

            untimelines of  the appeal.   Bankruptcy  Rule 9022(a),  like

            Fed. R. Civ.  P. 77(d), provides that, although  the clerk is

            to  provide  notice  of entry  of  judgment  to the  parties,

            "[l]ack of notice  of the entry does  not affect the  time to

            appeal or relieve  or authorize the court to  relieve a party

            for failure  to appeal  within  the time  allowed, except  as

            permitted in Rule 8002." Rule 9022(a).

                 "The courts have unanimously agreed, a mere lack of Rule

            77(d) notice does not justify Rule 60(b) relief."  12 Moore's
                                                                  _______

            Federal  Practice,  60.48[6][c] (3d ed. 1997).  "[P]arties to
            _________________

            an ongoing case have an independent obligation to monitor all

            developments  in  the case  and  cannot rely  on  the clerk's

            office to do  their homework for them."  Witty  v. Dukakis, 3
                                                     _____     _______

            F.3d 517, 520 (1st Cir. 1993).  Therefore, even if  we assume

            (without deciding) that  appellant did not receive  notice of

            entry of  the Judgment  within the  appeal period,  that fact

            alone would not justify Rule 60(b) relief.  Appellant has not

            alleged that  he  diligently monitored  the bankruptcy  court

            docket to determine if there  had been a ruling on appellees'

                                         -4-

            Motion Requesting Ruling  on Sanctions, which was  filed only

            four months before the Judgment  was entered.  The bankruptcy

            court  did  not abuse  its  broad discretion  in  denying the

            Motion.  See Witty, 3 F.3d at 521.
                     ___ _____

                 The district  court's Opinion  and Order  dated June  4,

            1996, is affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                     ________   ___

                                         -5-