Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Alan M. BARTLETT; Luz Marina Bartlett-Moran, Debtors, Alan M. Bartlett, Appellant, v. David A. Birdsell, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
IN RE: Alan M. Bartlett; Luz Marina Bartlett-Moran, Debtors, Alan M. Bartlett, Appellant, v. Citibank, South Dakota, N.A., Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Alan M. Barlett appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (“BAP”) judgment dismissing as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court's judgments in two adversary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. In re Delaney, 29 F.3d 516, 517-18 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
The BAP properly concluded that Alan's notices of appeal were untimely. See Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(a) (providing that a notice of appeal shall be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days of the date of entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from); In re Delaney, 29 F.3d at 517-18 (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's order.” (internal citation omitted)). We reject as meritless Alan's contentions that the certificates of service of the complaints in the adversary proceedings were invalid. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b) (providing that service in bankruptcy adversary proceedings may be made within the United States by first class mail).
Alan's motions for oral argument (Docket Entries Nos. 6 and 13) and for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 23) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 18-60066, No. 18-60067
Decided: April 13, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)