In re: Syntax Brillian Corp, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 7.

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-4343
___________
IN RE: SYNTAX-BRILLIAN CORPORATION, ET AL., Debtors
AHMED AMR,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00337)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 11, 2017
Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 19, 2017)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Ahmed Amr appeals from the order of the District Court denying his motion for
the District Judge’s recusal and affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order declining to
reconsider the matters addressed herein. We will affirm.

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

I.
This appeal arises from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of Syntax Brillian
Corporation (“SBC”). We have summarized the background of that proceeding before,
see In re Syntax-Brillian Corp., 610 F. App’x 132 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam); SB
Liquidation Trust v. Preferred Bank (In re Syntax-Brillian Corp.), 573 F. App’x 154 (3d
Cir. 2014), and we need not do so at length here because the parties are familiar with it.
Amr was a shareholder in SBC who actively participated in but ultimately opposed
SBC’s bankruptcy. He continues to attempt to undo it long after the Bankruptcy Court
confirmed SBC’s Chapter 11 plan (without appeal) in 2009. In 2012, Amr filed with the
Bankruptcy Court motions directed to SBC’s former bankruptcy counsel, Nancy A.
Mitchell and Greenberg Traurig LLP. In particular, he requested an order (1) sanctioning
former counsel for alleged fraud on the Bankruptcy Court, and (2) requiring them to
produce certain meeting minutes that he argued would support his request for sanctions.
The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing and then denied those motions by orders entered
March 2, 2012. (Bankr. ECF Nos. 1996 & 1997.) Amr filed a timely motion for
reconsideration of those orders, and the Bankruptcy Court denied it on December 7,
2012. (Bankr. ECF No. 2107.) Amr filed several motions for reconsideration of that
order as well, and the Bankruptcy Court denied them on January 14, 2013.
Amr then appealed to the District Court and challenged the Bankruptcy Court’s
December 7 denial of reconsideration. The District Court dismissed his appeal as
untimely, but we concluded that his appeal was timely and we remanded for further
proceedings. See In re Syntax-Brillian Corp., 610 F. App’x at 135. On remand, Amr and
2

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

a number of other litigants1 filed numerous motions in the District Court, which denied
them. Amr responded to that ruling by filing a motion asking the District Judge to recuse
himself. On December 9, 2016, the District Court entered an order (1) denying the
recusal motion and (2) affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s December 7 denial of
reconsideration. Amr appeals.
II.
We begin by addressing our jurisdiction and the scope and standard of our review.
Amr asserts that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over SBC’s
Chapter 11 proceeding in its entirety because SBC’s insolvency resulted from fraud. If
Amr were correct, of course, then the Bankruptcy Court would have lacked jurisdiction to
award him the very relief that he sought in his motions for sanctions and meeting
minutes. Nevertheless, we must satisfy ourselves that both the Bankruptcy Court and the
District Court had jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. See Geruschat v. Ernst
Young LLP (In re Seven Fields Dev. Corp.), 505 F.3d 237, 248 (3d Cir. 2007).
There is no question that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over SBC’s
Chapter 11 proceeding as a whole. See In re Syntax-Brillian Corp., 573 F. App’x at 159
(holding that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over a related adversary proceeding);
see also In re Seven Fields, 505 F.3d at 240 (noting that the debtor’s insolvency resulted
from a “Ponzi-type scheme”). The Bankruptcy Court also had jurisdiction over Amr’s

1

Amr refers to these litigants as “a band of pro se litigants [who] stood their ground in
defiance of the notoriously corrupt federal judges of the District of Delaware.”
(Appellant’s Br. at 1.) One of these litigants, Frank Waitkus, has filed a brief in support
of Amr’s position. We have reviewed that brief in reaching our disposition.
3

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 4

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

post-confirmation requests for sanctions and meeting minutes, regardless of whether
those requests were “core” proceedings or were merely “related to” the bankruptcy. Cf.
In re Seven Fields, 505 F.3d at 257-65 (addressing bankruptcy-related professional
malpractice claim).
The Bankruptcy Court’s denial of those discrete, post-confirmation requests and
its refusal to reconsider its rulings are final orders because those issues have been
conclusively resolved. See Century Glove, Inc. v. First Am. Bank of N.Y., 860 F.2d 94,
98-99 (3d Cir. 1988). Thus, the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
158(a)(1). And because the District Court’s order is final as well, we have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. Our jurisdiction over the Bankruptcy Court is
limited (as was the District Court’s) to the Bankruptcy Court’s December 7 denial of
reconsideration and does not extend to the Bankruptcy Court’s underlying orders for the
reasons explained in the margin.2

2

Appeals from the Bankruptcy Court must be taken to the District Court within 14 days,
see 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (incorporating Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(a)(1)), and that
requirement is jurisdictional, see In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2011). The
Bankruptcy Court denied Amr’s underlying motions on March 2, 2012. Amr filed his
motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2012. That motion tolled his time for appealing
the underlying orders. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(1)(B) (referencing Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 9023, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). The Bankruptcy Court denied
reconsideration on December 7, 2012. Thus, any appeal from the underlying orders was
due to be filed by December 21, 2012. Amr did not file an appeal within that time.
Instead, he filed several motions for “re-reconsideration” with the Bankruptcy Court.
The Bankruptcy Court denied them on January 14, 2013, and Amr filed his appeal with
the District Court 14 days thereafter on January 28, 2013. Amr’s initial motion for “rereconsideration” tolled his time for appealing the Bankruptcy Court’s December 7 denial
of reconsideration, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(1)(B), but it did not toll his time for
appealing the Bankruptcy Court’s underlying orders, see Turner v. Evers, 726 F.2d 112,
114 (3d Cir. 1984). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying orders because
4

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 5

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

We review the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of reconsideration directly, see Prosser
v. Gerber (In re Prosser), 777 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2015), and we do so for abuse of
discretion, see Long, 670 F.3d at 446 & n.20. We review the District Judge’s decision
not to recuse himself for abuse of discretion as well. See United States v. Ciavarella, 716
F.3d 705, 717 n.4 (3d Cir. 2013).
III.
Turning to the merits, Amr’s brief on appeal contains assertions impugning the
integrity of the federal judiciary. Indeed, Amr goes so far as to take issue with our
handling of the previous appeal in which we ruled in his favor. In any event, Amr’s brief
also challenges both aspects of the District Court’s order under appeal. His challenges
lack merit.
First, Amr challenges the District Court’s denial of his motion for recusal. Amr’s
arguments in this regard consist largely of bare accusations of “treason” and “judicial
tyranny.” Amr’s only specific arguments for the District Judge’s recusal are that (1) the
District Judge allowed the Bankruptcy Judge who denied reconsideration to “ghostwrite”
the District Judge’s opinion, and (2) the District Judge’s initial dismissal of Amr’s appeal
was erroneous. The District Judge explained that the Bankruptcy Judge did not
“ghostwrite” his opinion, and Amr has raised nothing calling that explanation into
question. The District Judge’s initial dismissal of Amr’s appeal also does not require
recusal. “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

Amr’s appeal was untimely as to them. See Long v. Atlantic City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d
436, 446 n.20 (3d Cir. 2012).
5

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 6

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

partiality motion,” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), and Amr has raised
nothing suggesting that this case is any exception. These points aside, the District Judge
acted well within his discretion in denying Amr’s recusal motion for the reasons that the
District Judge explained.
Second, Amr challenges the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of reconsideration on the
issues of sanctions and meeting minutes. Amr appears to suggest that the Bankruptcy
Court’s denial of reconsideration (and its prior orders) are void because the bankruptcy
proceeding has since been reassigned to a different Bankruptcy Judge. Reassignment of a
case does not void previous rulings. Cf. Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1283, 128990 (3d Cir. 1994) (addressing “law of the case” doctrine).
As for the substance of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, the Bankruptcy Court
denied Amr’s motion for sanctions because it concluded that he sought to assert claims
that both belonged to SBC’s bankruptcy estate and that had been settled. The Bankruptcy
Court denied Amr’s motion for meeting minutes for the same reasons and also because
Amr had previously filed six virtually identical motions, some of which already had
resulted in the Bankruptcy Court granting Amr all available relief in that regard. Finally,
the Bankruptcy Court denied Amr’s motion to reconsider these rulings because Amr did
not present any new evidence or new law and did not show the need to correct clear error
or prevent manifest injustice. See Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2013).
Amr does not raise any specific challenge to any of these rulings or otherwise raise
any specific argument that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in denying
reconsideration. Nevertheless, having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the
6

Case: 16-4343

Document: 003112628205

Page: 7

Date Filed: 05/19/2017

Bankruptcy Court acted well within its discretion for the reasons that both the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court thoroughly explained.
On a final note, Amr closes his brief by requesting numerous forms of relief,
including that we “dismiss” SBC’s Chapter 11 proceeding, refer various parties to the
Department of Justice, and enjoin the Delaware Bankruptcy Court from hearing certain
kinds of cases. These requests are denied. Many of them are beyond our appellate
jurisdiction as discussed above, and any that are not lack merit.
IV.
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. To the extent
that Amr requests any relief in his filing titled “final notice to Governor Jerry Brown and
Senator Kamala Harris to cease and desist,” etc., or in any other filing, such relief is
denied.

7