In re: Beckford

Filing 21

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Judgment and granting other relief in accordance with the attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/20/2015. (Shin, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ALMAN ANDREW BECKFORD,
Appellant,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, AND JOHN AND JANE
DOES (1-50)
Appellees.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:14-CV-00249 (VAB)

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Appellant Alman Andrew Beckford moves this court pro se for
entry of judgment in his favor.

For the reasons that follow,

Mr. Beckford’s motion is denied, and Appellee is ordered to
serve forthwith a copy of its appellate brief upon Mr. Beckford,
who is granted 14 days from service to file a reply brief.
I.

Background
On June 27, 2013, Appellant initiated an adversary

proceeding in the Chapter Seven bankruptcy case that he had
commenced in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Connecticut.

The Bankruptcy Court granted Appellee’s motion

to dismiss the adversary proceeding and denied Appellant’s
motion to reconsider.

This appeal followed, with a Notice of

Appeal entered on this Court’s docket on March 5, 2014.
Appellant filed his brief on April 21, 2014, and Appellee
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC ("Bayview") filed its responsive

1

brief on May 5, 2014.

Appellant then filed this motion for

entry of judgment on August 13, 2014.
II.

Discussion
In his motion for entry of judgment, Mr. Beckford argues

that (1) Bayview violated former Rule 8005 of the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure by not filing a motion for stay relief
before proceeding with a foreclosure action in State court and
(2) Bayview violated former Rule 8009 by not properly filing or
serving its brief and attached exhibits.
First, Mr. Beckford alleges in his briefs in support of
this motion that, during the pendency of this appeal, Bayview
began pursuing a foreclosure action in Connecticut Superior
Court, in contravention of a bankruptcy court stay that remained
in effect at the time.

He argues that Judgment on his appeal

should be granted on this ground.
However, former Rule 8005 is inapplicable here.

This Rule

provided, in essence, that: a party could move for a stay of a
bankruptcy court judgment, order, or decree, approval of a
supersedeas bond, or other relief pending appeal; a motion for
such relief, or for modification or termination of relief
granted by the bankruptcy court, could be made to the district
court or bankruptcy appellate panel if the motion showed why the
relief, modification, or termination was not obtained from the
bankruptcy court; and the bankruptcy court could suspend or

2

order the continuation of other proceedings in the case during
the pendency of an appeal on such terms as would protect the
rights of all parties in interest.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005

(2013) (current version at Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007); In re
Wilson, 53 B.R. 123, 124 (D. Mont. 1985) (“Bankruptcy Rule 8005
provides that a motion for stay of the order of a bankruptcy
court pending appeal must ordinarily be made in the bankruptcy
court and, if such motion is made initially in the district
court, that it must show why the relief was not obtained from
the bankruptcy court.”).
Neither the former nor current version of this Rule
provides grounds for entry of judgment against an appellee, nor
are they an appropriate means by which Mr. Beckford could obtain
relief for any alleged violation by Bayview of an existing stay.
Former Rule 8009 likewise provides no grounds for entry of
judgment against an appellee.

However, it did require appellees

to “serve and file a brief within 14 days after service of the
brief of appellant.”

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(2) (2013)

(current version at Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(2)).

Here, Mr.

Beckford alleges that he was never served with a copy of
Bayview’s responsive brief.

If true, this would severely

prejudice Mr. Beckford, as this would have denied him the
opportunity to file a reply brief, which he was entitled to
under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

3

See Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 8009(a)(3) (2013) (current version at Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 8018(a)(3)).

Cf. Eng’g & Mfg. Servs., LLC v. Ashton, 387 F.

App’x 575, 582 (6th Cir. 2010) (late responsive brief did not
prejudice movant because movant had received brief and filed
reply and the delay “had no apparent impact on the
proceedings”); Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean,
Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1985) (“late affidavits
plainly prejudiced” the other party and “should not have been
considered”).
The remedy for this alleged deficiency is not, however,
entry of judgment against Appellee.

Instead, the Court directs

Appellee to serve a copy of its brief, with all attached
exhibits, on Appellant within seven days of this Order.
Appellant will then have 14 days from service of Appellee’s
brief to serve and file a reply brief.

See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8009(a)(3) (2013) (current version at Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8018(a)(3)); cf. Cia. Petrolera Caribe, 754 F.2d at 410
(“Certainly, after discovering that use of the information
contained in the tardily served brief and affidavit would be
helpful to its opinion, the district court should then have
provided the [other] party with an opportunity to respond.”).
Because Appellant is pro se and not participating in electronic
filing, Appellant must ensure that his mailing address on record
with the Court is current.

See L. Civ. R. 83.1(c)(2) (“Any

4

party appearing pro se must give an address within the District
of Connecticut where service can be made upon him or her in the
same manner as service is made on an attorney.”).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Appellant’s motion for entry of judgment is
denied, Appellant is ordered to notify the Clerk of Court and
counsel for Appellee if he has changed his address since the
commencement of this appeal with “PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS”
written on the notice, Appellee is ordered to serve a copy of
its appellate brief upon Appellant within 7 days, and Appellant
is granted 14 days from such service to file and serve a reply
brief.
So ordered this 20th day of April, 2015, at Bridgeport,
Connecticut.

/s/ Victor A. Bolden
Victor A. Bolden
United States District Judge

5