Parsons et al v. Richardson

Filing 7

OPINION (See Written Opinion): Richardson's Motion to Dismiss (d/e 3 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/25/2015. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 25 March, 2015 12:10:05 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JACOB ALLEN PARSONS,
ERIN LEE PARSONS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appellants,
v.
JEFFREY D. RICHARDSON,
Appellee.

Civil No. 14-3334

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Before the Court is Appellee Jeffrey Richardson’s Motion to
Dismiss Appeal (d/e 3). Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over
Appellants Jacob Allen Parsons and Erin Lee Parsons’ appeal, the
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Jacob Allen and Erin Lee Parsons initially filed for bankruptcy
in the Southern District of Texas. Jeffrey Richardson was a trustee
in that bankruptcy case who moved to transfer the case to the
Central District of Illinois. On September 18, 2014, the Southern
District of Texas bankruptcy court granted Richardson’s motion.
Page 1 of 6

On October 3, 2014, the Parsons filed a notice appealing the
Southern District of Texas bankruptcy court’s transfer order. That
appeal caused the case currently before this Court to be opened on
November 6, 2014. Richardson moved to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction1 on November 18, 2014. As of February 3,
2015, the Parsons had not filed a response to Richardson’s motion
to dismiss so the Court sent a notice to the Parsons informing them
that they would need to file a response to Richardson’s motion by
February 20, 2015, or face dismissal of their appeal.
The Parsons did not file a response by February 20, but, on
March 3, 2015, they filed a document titled “Motion for Extension of
Time to Respond.” In their motion, the Parsons stated that they did
not understand what Richardson’s motion to dismiss “[was] all
about” and did not know how to respond to it. The Parsons also
requested that the Court send them filings from this case and
provide them with legal assistance to respond to Richardson’s
motion to dismiss and to “others who are challenging the

Richardson makes several other arguments against the Parsons’ appeal, but
because the Court concludes that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal,
the Court need not address these other arguments.
Page 2 of 6
1

bankruptcy.” The Court granted the Parsons’ extension request by
ordering them to file a response to Richardson’s motion by March
20, 2015, explaining the reason for their late appeal. The Court
denied the Parsons’ request for counsel. No response to
Richardson’s motion was received by March 20.
The Court concludes that the Parsons’ appeal must be
dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002, appeals of
bankruptcy court orders must be filed within 14 days. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). An appealing party can request additional
time to file an appeal during this 14-day period, or, if the party can
show “excusable neglect,” within the 21 days following the
expiration of the 14-day period. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(d)(1).
Rule 8002 is jurisdictional—that is, if an appealing party fails to
either file an appeal or request additional time to file an appeal
within the limits set by Rule 8002, a district court lacks jurisdiction
to hear the appeal. See In re Monahan, 3 F. App’x 558, 559 (7th
Cir. 2001) (“Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a) requires that a notice of
appeal from a bankruptcy court’s decision be filed within [fourteen]
Page 3 of 6

days from the entry of judgment, and failure to do so deprives the
district court of jurisdiction.”); In re Longardner & Associates, Inc.,
855 F.2d 455, 463 (7th Cir. 1988) (forbidding any extension of the
deadline for filing an appeal not allowed by Rule 8002); In re
Schwinn Bicycle Co., 209 B.R. 887, 890 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (“The court
finds that Fairly failed to file its notice of appeal and to request an
extension of time to file its notice of appeal in a timely manner, and
therefore that this court has no jurisdiction over Fairly’s appeal.”).
The only exception to this jurisdictional bar arises through the
“unique circumstances” doctrine, under which a court can “excuse
an untimely notice of appeal ‘only where a party has performed an
act which, if properly done, would postpone the deadline for filing
his appeal and has received specific assurance by a judicial officer
that this act has been properly done.’” Monahan, 3 F. App’x at 560
(quoting Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179 (1989)).
Here, the Parsons did not satisfy the requirements of Rule
8002. They appealed the bankruptcy court’s order on October 3, 15
days after the September 18 ruling. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006
(explaining that in calculating deadlines, a court begins counting
Page 4 of 6

with the day after an order is entered and counts every day from
there onwards, including weekends and holidays). The Parsons did
not request an extension of time either before or after filing their
notice of appeal. Furthermore, there were no particularly “unique
circumstances” here to justify an exception to Rule 8002’s
jurisdictional bar. The Parsons did not take any actions which
could have “postpone[d] the deadline for filing [their] appeal”—they
simply filed their appeal after the deadline. Lastly, the Court notes
that while the Parsons currently lack representation and filed their
notice of appeal themselves, they were actually represented by
counsel until October 28, 2014—long after the expiration of the
deadline to appeal or to seek leave to file a late appeal based on
excusable neglect—and their counsel filed nothing to justify the
Parsons’ late appeal.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Parsons’
appeal was filed after Rule 8002’s deadlines, meaning that the
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Parsons’ appeal. Therefore,
Richardson’s Motion to Dismiss (d/e 3) is GRANTED. The Clerk is
directed to close this case.
Page 5 of 6

ENTER: March 25, 2015.
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 6 of 6