Hewlett v. Elder-Hoskins et al

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/16/2013. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2013)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

IN RE: SOPHIA NG,

5
6
7

__________________________________/

Bankruptcy No. 06-30904 TEC

PATRICIA HEWLETT,

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 13-328 CRB

Debtor

Appellant,
v.
JANINA MARIA ELDER-HOSKINS,

11

Appellee.

12

/

13

Appellant Patricia Hewlett (“Hewlett”) appeals a Bankruptcy Court judgment

14

dismissing all of her outstanding claims. Hewlett appeals in propia persona and provides no

15

legal or factual basis for disturbing the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court. Accordingly, the

16

judgment is AFFIRMED.

17

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

On September 30, 2006, the debtor, Sophia Ng, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At the

19

time the bankruptcy was filed, Ng owned real property, including an apartment building

20

located at 1385 Clay Street. In January 2007, Hewlett filed a proof of claim in the Ng

21

bankruptcy claiming various interests in 1385 Clay Street based on pre-bankruptcy petition

22

contracts. The Trustee subsequently filed an adversary proceeding against Hewlett

23

challenging her claimed interests in 1385 Clay Street and objected to Hewlett’s proof of

24

claim.

25

The Bankruptcy Court dismissed several of Hewlett’s claims in an order this Court

26

and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See Ninth Cir. Case No. 08-15554, Dkt. 28. On January 13,

27

2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all remaining claims in an adversary proceeding. In re

28

Sophia Ng, N.D. Bank. Ct., Adv. Proc. No. 07-3071TEC, Doc. Nos. 184, 185. Hewlett was
the only party to object. Her counsel subsequently filed a statement with this Court

1

indicating that he was unable to identify any non-frivolous issues for appeal. Appellant’s

2

Statement (dkt. 15).
JURISDICTION

3
4

This Court has jurisdiction of this bankruptcy appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

5

The Bankruptcy Court issued its Memorandum Re Dismissal of All Remaining Claims

6

Against All Parties and its final Judgment on January 18, 2013. The Bankruptcy Court’s

7

decision forms the basis of the present appeal.

8

LEGAL STANDARD

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

A district court reviews a bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its

11

conclusions of law de novo. In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2007).

12
13

DISCUSSION

14

Hewlett fails to articulate a single legal basis for overturning the decision of the

15

Bankruptcy Court. Hewlett’s former counsel was unable to identify any non-frivolous issues

16

to appeal and explained in a well-reasoned filing why Hewlett has no basis for appealing the

17

judgment now on appeal. Appellant’s Statement. Hewlett ignored the advice of counsel and

18

filed a brief in propia persona. Her only argument is that a “reasonable person with

19

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that Judge Carlson’s impartiality might reasonably

20

be questioned.” Reply Br. (dkt. 19) at 4. To the extent it is possible to construe Hewlett’s

21

briefs as arguing that the Bankruptcy Court clearly erred in its findings of fact, Hewlett

22

provides no support for such argument.1

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 16, 2013

26
27
1

28

Appelle makes numerous other facially valid legal arguments in her brief. The Court need not
reach these arguments as Hewlett has failed to articulate any basis for disturbing the judgment on
appeal.
2