In Re: Zoya Kosovska

Filing 1

ORDER from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ORDERING the case TRANSFERRED for the limited purpose of ruling on the IFP Motion. (Donati, J)

Case: 15-1139, Document: 9, Filed: 06/29/2015

Page 1 of 13

FILED
JUN 29 2015

SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK
U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

FILED
Jun 29, 2015

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:
ZOYA KOSOVSKA;
Debtor.

ZOYA KOSOVSKA; LILIYA WALSH,
Appellants,
v.
MAX DEFAULT SERVICES CORP;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION; SETERUS, INC.,
Appellees.

Before:

)
BAP No.
EC-15-1139
)
)
Bk. No.
14-25893-A-11
)
)
Adv. No. 14-02271-A
) District No. 2:15-mc-0073 TLN EFB (PS)(BK)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER TRANSFERRING IFP MOTION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PAPPAS and TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judges.

Appellants filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis with respect to this appeal ("IFP Motion").

A notice

was issued by the BAP Clerk, giving the bankruptcy court the
opportunity to make a certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
regarding whether the appeal is frivolous.

No certification was

made by the trial court.
Under the holding of Perroton v. Gray (In re Perroton), 958
F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992) and Determan v. Sandoval (In re
Sandoval), 186 B.R. 490, 496 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel has no authority to grant or deny in forma

Case: 15-1139, Document: 9, Filed: 06/29/2015

Page 2 of 13

pauperis motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) because bankruptcy
courts are not "court[s] of the United States" as defined in 28
U.S.C. § 451.
Therefore, appellants' IFP Motion is hereby TRANSFERRED to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California for the limited purpose of ruling on the IFP Motion.
It is appellants' responsibility to take all necessary steps
to have the IFP Motion considered by the district court within a
reasonable period of time.
No later than Wednesday, July 29, 2015, appellants must file
with the Panel and serve on opposing counsel a written response
which includes as an exhibit a copy of the district court’s order
on the IFP Motion or an explanation of the steps appellants have
taken to have the IFP Motion considered by the district court.
For the convenience of the district court, copies of the notice
of appeal, the IFP Motion, and the order on appeal are attached
to this order.
Appellants must file the opening brief and excerpts of the
record (including all necessary transcripts1) no later than

1

The designation of record filed by appellants indicates that no
transcripts are requested or required for this appeal. Bankruptcy Court Docket
at 44. (Designation of Record). However, the bankruptcy court docket
indicates that hearings were held with respect to the order on appeal on
November 24, 2015 and March 20, 2015. Bankruptcy Court Docket at 20 and 32
(Civil Minutes). If appellants do not provide the transcripts of all relevant
hearings, the Panel is entitled to assume that appellants do not believe there
is anything in the transcripts that will help appellants' appeal and may
dismiss the appeal or summarily affirm the order on appeal. State of
California v. Yun (In re Yun), 476 B.R. 243 (9th Cir. BAP 2012).

2

Case: 15-1139, Document: 9, Filed: 06/29/2015

Page 3 of 13

TWENTY-ONE days after entry of an order by the district court
regarding appellants' IFP motion.
Failure to comply with the requirements of this order may
result in dismissal of this appeal for lack of prosecution
without further notice to the parties.
2.

3

9th Cir. BAP R. 8018(a)-