Court Opinion

ID: 9707095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:02:24.159879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:28.130084
License: Public Domain

RYAN, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring:
*918I agree with the majority that there is no jurisdictional requirement that a closed bankruptcy case be reopened before § 1334(b) “arising under” jurisdiction can be exercised. Because the debtor failed to appeal the nondischargeability judgment, the appeal is moot because we are unable to fashion effective relief. Similarly, the debtor’s failure to appeal the nondis-chargeability judgment leaves him without standing to appeal the reopening because he is not pecuniarily affected by the granting of the motion to reopen. Therefore, I concur in the result.
However, I disagree with the majority’s approach to § 350(b) because it renders that section superfluous, see Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 62, 118 S.Ct. 974, 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998) (stating that “ ‘we are hesitant to adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same laV ”) (citation omitted), but would leave resolution of this issue for another day because it is not necessary to reach our decision.