Loder v. Icemakers Inc
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 4/6/2018. (PSM)
FILED
2018 Apr-06 PM 03:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEE LODER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellant,
VS.
ICEMAKERS, INC.,
Appellee.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01696-LSC
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Before the Court is Appellee Icemakers, Inc. (“Appellee”)’s Motion to
Extend Appellee’s Time for Filing Its Brief and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Or
Remand (the “Motion to Dismiss or Remand”) filed on November 20, 2017. (See
Docs. 12 & 13.) Appellee argues in its Motion to Dismiss or Remand that this
appeal by Appellant Lee Loder (“Appellant”) should be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative this Court should find this appeal
equitably moot. As this Court finds that it currently lacks jurisdiction to hear this
appeal, Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss or Remand is due to be granted to the extent
that it requests remand to the Bankruptcy Court.
I. BACKGROUND
Page 1 of 6
On September 14, 2017, Judge D. Sims Crawford entered an order in the
adversary proceeding styled Icemakers, Inc. v. Lee Wendell Loder (In re Loder), AP
NO. 07-00143-DSC, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee and denying
a number of other pending motions by the Appellant. (See Doc. 1-4.) On September
27, 2017, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in the adversary proceeding, informing
the Bankruptcy Court of his appeal of the September 14, 2017, Order denying his
motions and granting of Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. 1-4;
Notice of Appeal, Icemakers, Inc. v. Lee Wendell Loder (In re Loder), AP NO. 0700143-DSC (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2017). Likewise on September 14, 2017,
Appellant additionally filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which asked the
Bankruptcy Court to reconsider the September 14, 2017 decision that Appellant
had just appealed. (Doc. 145, Icemakers, Inc. v. Lee Wendell Loder (In re Loder), AP
NO. 07-00143-DSC (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2017). The Notice of Appeal was
docketed in this Court on October 3, 2017. (Doc. 1.) On November 20, 2017,
Appellee filed the Motion to Dismiss or Remand now pending before this Court,
asking for either dismissal of Appellant’s bankruptcy appeal as equitably moot, or
in the alternative remand of the action to the Bankruptcy Court for consideration of
the Motion to Reconsider. On December 4, 2017, Appellant responded asking the
Court to stay the “appeal and remand [as] the most equitable solution[].”
Page 2 of 6
II. DISCUSSION
Before reaching whether this case is equitably moot, the Court first
addresses whether Appellant’s notice of appeal is effective. If it is not, the Court
must dismiss or remand the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Williams v. EMC
Mortgage Corp. (In re Williams), 216 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1) provides that, “Except as provided in
subdivisions (b) and (c), a notice of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk
within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree being appealed.” Rule
8002(b)(1) provides further guidance to the general fourteen-day rule of
8002(a)(1):
If a party timely files in the bankruptcy court any of the following motions,
the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order
disposing of the last such remaining motion:
(A) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 7052,
whether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment;
(B) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 9023;
(C) for a new trial under Rule 9023; or
(D) for relief under Rule 9024 if the motion is filed within 14
days after the judgment is entered.
Appellant grounded his Motion to Reconsider before the Bankruptcy Court under,
among other rules, Rule 7052, 9023, and 9024. Thus, it would appear that Rule
Page 3 of 6
8002(b)(1)’s tolling of the fourteen-day period for Appellant to file a Notice of
Appeal is facially applicable. Rule 8002(b)(2) further provides that, “If a party files
a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment, order, or decree-but before it disposes of any motion listed in subdivision (b)(1)--the notice becomes
effective when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.”
Under normal circumstances, a Notice of Appeal is not effective until after the
Motions specified in 8002(b)(1) are disposed of by the Bankruptcy Court.
The tricky posture of this action has arrived before the Court because of
Appellant’s out-of-order filing of the (1) Notice of Appeal and (2) Motion to
Reconsider. The tolling procedure in Rule 8002 normally operates under the
assumption that a party first seeks reconsideration of a dispositive motion before
appealing that motion. On his journey from the Bankruptcy Court to this Court,
Appellant has put the procedural cart before the horse, creating a jurisdictional
issue not quite contemplated by the text of Rule 8002. Thus, while the Notice of
Appeal would have been effective at its filing, the subsequent filing of the Motion
for Reconsideration rendered the Notice of Appeal non-effective until the Motion
for Reconsideration had been disposed of.
In 1994, Rule 8002 received significant amendments intended to conform its
text to that of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The Advisory
Page 4 of 6
Committee notes to the 1994 amendments indicate that the drafters sought to
prevent the results obtained under previous versions of the Rule wherein a notice
of appeal was rendered a nullity if filed before the disposition of a pending postjudgment motion:
This rule as amended provides that a notice of appeal filed before the
disposition of a specified postjudgment motion will become effective
upon disposition of the motion. A notice filed before the filing of one of the
specified motions or after the filing of a motion but before disposition of the
motion is, in effect, suspended until the motion is disposed of, whereupon,
the previously filed notice effectively places jurisdiction in the district court
or bankruptcy appellate panel.
....
The amendment provides that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition
of a postjudgment tolling motion is sufficient to bring the judgment, order,
or decree specified in the original notice of appeal to the district court or
bankruptcy appellate panel. If the judgment is altered upon disposition
of a postjudgment motion, however, and if a party who has previously
filed a notice of appeal wishes to appeal from disposition of the
motion, the party must amend the notice to so indicate. When a party
files an amended notice, no additional fees are required because the
notice is an amendment of the original and not a new notice of appeal.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 (emphasis added). According to the Advisory Committee
notes, it would appear that the correct result in this case would be a remand of the
action to the Bankruptcy Court for the limited purpose of deciding Appellant’s
Motion to Reconsider. Following the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling on the Motion to
Reconsider, the previous filed notice of appeal will become effective. See In re
Page 5 of 6
Markowitz, 190 F.3d 455, 460 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Thus, the notice of appeal was
suspended until the bankruptcy court decided the [motion for rehearing] but
ripened upon disposition of that motion. No new notice was required.”); In re
Potter, 285 B.R. 344 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2002) (remanding appeal to bankruptcy court
for ruling on motion for reconsideration and holding that notice of appeal becomes
effective after determination of that post-judgment motion). Until the Bankruptcy
Court’s ruling on Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over his appeal.
III.
CONCLUSION
As stated above, this matter is due to be remanded to the Bankruptcy Court
for the limited purpose of determining the Appellant’s Motion to Reconsider.
Because the Court otherwise lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, it is
due to be dismissed without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Opinion will
be entered separately.
DONE and ORDERED on April 6, 2018.
_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
190485
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?