IN RE: PADCO PRESSURE CONTROL (2020)

Michael Ray Carr challenges a bankruptcy court’s sanctions judgment. “In reviewing cases originating in bankruptcy, we ‘perform the same function as did the district court: Fact findings of the bankruptcy court are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and issues of law are reviewed de novo.’ ” See In re Soileau, 488 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Berryman Prods. (In re Berryman), 159 F.3d 941, 943 (5th Cir. 1998)).

Carr first argues that the bankruptcy court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not properly served with the motion for sanctions or notice of hearing. The Supreme Court has held that “personal jurisdiction is a waivable right,” such that a party may give “express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 n.14, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982)). By attending his hearings and contesting the imposition of sanctions, Carr consented to the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction over him.

Carr also challenges the bankruptcy court’s calculation of sanctions and argues that newly discovered evidence calls into question the credibility of a witness. His motion for relief from the sanctions order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024. We have held that a Rule 60(b) motion is “not a substitute for the ordinary method of redressing judicial error—appeal.” McMillan v. MBank Fort Worth, N.A., 4 F.3d 362, 367 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon, 699 F.2d 693, 696 (5th Cir. 1983)). Having carefully considered Carr’s arguments, we are not persuaded that the bankruptcy court erred in denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.