Court Opinion

ID: 9400688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 20:01:48.278523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.314646
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12010   Document: 14-1    Date Filed: 06/08/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-12010
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       In Re: MARVIN B. SMITH, III,
        SHARON H. SMITH,
                                                             Debtors.
       __________________________________________________
       MARVIN B. SMITH, III,
                                                             Plaintiﬀ,
       SHARON H. SMITH,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       M. DELORES MURPHY,
USCA11 Case: 22-12010        Document: 14-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 2 of 7

       2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-12010

                                                             Defendant-Appellee.

                               ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Georgia
                      D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00075-LGW,
                           Bkcy. No. 2:07-bk-20244-MJK
                            ____________________

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Sharon Smith, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s
       orders awarding attorney’s fees and costs to M. Delores Murphy
       and denying reconsideration of that award. No reversible error has
       been shown; we aﬃrm.
            This appeal arises out of extensive litigation stemming from
       Marvin2 and Sharon Smith’s bankruptcy proceedings and from
       property the Smiths owned on St. Simons Island, Georgia. Perti-
       nent to this appeal, the Smiths ﬁled an adversary complaint against
       Murphy in the bankruptcy court in 2017. In June 2019, the

       1We read liberally briefs filed by pro se litigants. See Timson v. Sampson, 518
       F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
       2 Plaintiff Marvin Smith, III, is now deceased.
USCA11 Case: 22-12010     Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 06/08/2023    Page: 3 of 7

       22-12010              Opinion of the Court                        3

       bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The dis-
       trict court aﬃrmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal on appeal.
               The Smiths then sought review of the district court’s order
       in this Court. On 18 March 2021, we aﬃrmed the dismissal of the
       Smiths’ adversary complaint. See Smith v. Murphy, 849 F. App’x 867
       (11th Cir. 2021) (unpublished). We also granted Murphy’s motion
       for attorney’s fees and costs. We concluded that sanctions under
       Fed. R. App. P. 38 were justiﬁed because the arguments raised by
       the Smiths on appeal were “frivolous and utterly without merit.”
       We remanded to the district court for a determination of the
       amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded. See
       id.
              On remand, the district court ordered Murphy to ﬁle a brief
       addressing the appropriate amount of attorney’s fees and costs.
       The district court also gave the Smiths 14 days in which to ﬁle a
       responsive brief. Murphy ﬁled a brief and an aﬃdavit of her lawyer
       describing the attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the Smiths’
       appeal. The Smiths ﬁled no response.
             On 6 April 2022, the district court entered an order awarding
       Murphy attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $5,370.40. This
       award amount consisted of 85% of the $6,000 ﬂat-fee charged by
       Murphy’s lawyer plus $270.40 in costs.
               On 28 April 2022, Smith moved for reconsideration of the
       district court’s 6 April 2022 order. Smith argued that the district
       court’s award of attorney’s fees was premature because Smith in-
       tended to ﬁle a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme
USCA11 Case: 22-12010      Document: 14-1        Date Filed: 06/08/2023   Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12010

       Court, as well as a petition for writ of mandamus. Smith also as-
       serted that she was denied her due process rights because she re-
       ceived no hearing and received no notice of the district court’s or-
       ders, which were mailed to her former address.
              The district court denied the motion for reconsideration on
       2 May 2022. Smith ﬁled her notice of appeal in the district court
       on 3 June 2022.
                                            I.
              We ﬁrst address our jurisdiction over this appeal. Smith’s
       notice of appeal was ﬁled more than 30 days after the district
       court’s 6 April 2022 order and 2 May 2022 orders and, thus, might
       appear untimely for both orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (provid-
       ing a 30-day time limit for ﬁling a notice of appeal in a civil case);
       Fed. R. App. P. 6(b) (making Rule 4(a)(1) applicable to appeals in
       bankruptcy cases).
              Even if we assume that Smith’s notice of appeal was un-
       timely-ﬁled, we nevertheless do have jurisdiction over this appeal.
       Because the 30-day time limit applicable to this bankruptcy appeal
       is not derived from a statute, it constitutes a non-jurisdictional
       claim-processing rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (providing explicitly that
       the statutory time limits for ﬁling an appeal in a civil action “shall
       not apply to bankruptcy matters or other proceedings under Title
       11”); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17
       (2017) (“[A] provision governing the time to appeal in a civil action
       qualiﬁes as jurisdictional only if Congress sets the time.”). In addi-
       tion, Murphy has ﬁled no objection based on timeliness; so, the
USCA11 Case: 22-12010      Document: 14-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023   Page: 5 of 7

       22-12010               Opinion of the Court                          5

       timeliness issue is forfeited. See Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17-18 (explain-
       ing that a claim-processing rule may be forfeited if not raised
       properly by the appellee).
                                            II.
              On appeal, Smith reiterates the arguments raised in her mo-
       tion for reconsideration. We note that Smith raises no substantive
       challenge to the district court’s manner of calculating the award
       amount.
              We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s award of
       attorney’s fees and a district court’s denial of a motion for recon-
       sideration. See In re Home Depot, Inc., 931 F.3d 1065, 1078 (11th Cir.
       2019) (attorney’s fees); Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th
       Cir. 2010) (reconsideration). “A motion for reconsideration cannot
       be used ‘to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evi-
       dence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’”
       Richardson, 598 F.3d at 740.
              Smith ﬁrst contends that she was denied her Fifth Amend-
       ment due process rights because she was not aﬀorded a hearing and
       because she received inadequate notice of the district court’s or-
       ders. The district court abused no discretion in denying reconsid-
       eration on these grounds.
              Smith failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to an ac-
       tual hearing under the circumstances involved in this case and,
       thus, can show no due process violation. Never did Smith request
       a hearing following our March 2021 remand to the district court.
       And Smith has failed to identify binding legal authority requiring a
USCA11 Case: 22-12010        Document: 14-1        Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12010

       district court to schedule sua sponte a hearing to determine the rea-
       sonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs awarded under Rule
       38.
               Nor can we conclude that the district court failed to provide
       Smith with adequate notice of the district court’s orders. That the
       district court mailed the pertinent orders to Smith at the current
       address then on ﬁle with the district court is undisputed. This mail-
       ing constituted adequate notice.3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C)
       (providing that a paper can be served by mailing it to the person’s
       last known address).
               As Smith acknowledges, she was responsible for keeping the
       district court informed of any change of address. See S.D. Ga. R.
       11.1 (“Each attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing obligation
       to apprise the Court of any address change.”). Smith contends,
       however, that she was unable to do so because she suﬀered from
       “debilitating vertigo, which prevented her from sitting and stand-
       ing without nausea and vomiting.” But Smith has oﬀered no evi-
       dence about the date on which she changed addresses or evidence
       showing that her medical conditions existed at the pertinent time.
       On this record, the district court acted within its discretion in de-
       termining that Smith’s purported medical condition was insuﬃ-
       cient to require reconsideration.

       3 Contrary to Smith’s assertion otherwise, neither the district court nor Mur-
       phy were required to provide Smith with electronic notice of the pertinent
       orders and briefs.
USCA11 Case: 22-12010        Document: 14-1        Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 7 of 7

       22-12010                  Opinion of the Court                              7

              Smith also contends that the district court’s 6 April 2022
       award of attorney’s fees and costs was premature. Smith says she
       is seeking to ﬁle with the Supreme Court an out-of-time petition
       for writ of certiorari and a petition for writ of mandamus which --
       if granted -- might render moot the district court’s award of attor-
       ney’s fees. We reject this argument. When the district court issued
       the orders challenged on appeal, our 18 March 2021 decision award-
       ing attorney’s fees and costs -- and directing the district court to
       determine a reasonable award amount on remand -- remained in-
       tact. The district court abused no discretion in denying reconsider-
       ation based on Smith’s speculation about future events.
              Smith has demonstrated no abuse of discretion. We aﬃrm
       the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs and the district
       court’s denial of reconsideration of that award.

              AFFIRMED.4

       4 In her appellate brief, Smith complains (1) that she was denied a hearing in
       other proceedings not before this Court; (2) that she was denied oral argument
       in other appeals; and (3) about alleged attorney misconduct in other cases.
       These matters are outside the scope of this appeal.