THURMAN v. TRUSTEE et al
Filing
10
ORDER - Appellant Sharon Lynn Thurman has a pending Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana. See In re Thurman, Bank. No. 17-01904 (Bank. S.D. Ind.). On October 12, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted the United States Trustee's ("the Trustee") Motion for Extension to Time to File a Complaint to Deny Discharge. [Bank. Dkt. No. 67 .] On October 25, 2017, Ms. Thurman filed in this Court a Notice of Appeal, challenging the Bankruptcy Court's order granting an extension of time. [Filing No. 1 .] Presently pending before the Court is the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss that appeal. [Filing No. 6 .] Ms. Thurman did not file a response to that Motion. For the r easons stated in this Order, the Court GRANTS the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Thurman's appeal. [Filing No. 6 .] Final judgment shall issue separately. See Order. Copy to Appellant via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/24/2018. (APD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SHARON LYNN THURMAN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellant,
v.
TRUSTEE, JUDGE MOBY,
United States Trustee NANCY J. GARGULA,
Appellees.
No. 1:17-cv-03876-JMS-DML
ORDER
Appellant Sharon Lynn Thurman has a pending Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana. See In re Thurman, Bank. No. 17-01904
(Bank. S.D. Ind.). On October 12, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted the United States Trustee’s
(“the Trustee”) Motion for Extension to Time to File a Complaint to Deny Discharge. [Bank. Dkt.
No. 67.] On October 25, 2017, Ms. Thurman filed in this Court a Notice of Appeal, challenging
the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting an extension of time. [Filing No. 1.] Presently pending
before the Court is the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss that appeal. [Filing No. 6.] Ms. Thurman did
not file a response to that Motion.
“The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final
judgments, orders, and decrees; ... and ... with leave of the court, from other interlocutory orders
and decrees ... of bankruptcy judges entered in cases.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Final orders subject
to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) are immediately appealable as a matter of right, while interlocutory orders
subject to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) may only be appealed with leave of the district court. That leave
is granted “at the discretion of the district court,” and should be granted only where there are
“extraordinary circumstances” justifying interlocutory review. In re Eastern Livestock Co., LLC
1
v. Trustee, 2013 WL 4479096, at *3 (S.D. Ind. 2013). Courts have generally looked to the standard
articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as guiding the analysis of whether an interlocutory appeal is
appropriate. See, e.g., Ahrenholz v. Bd. Of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois, 219 F.3d 674, 675 (7th
Cir. 2000) (describing the standard as requiring that the order appealed from “involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and
where “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of
the litigation”).
An order granting an extension of time in a pending bankruptcy petition is not a final
appealable order: it resolves neither the substantive rights of the parties, nor a stand-alone dispute.
See Shaumberg Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Alsterda, 815 F.3d 306, 312-14 (7th Cir. 2016). Ms.
Thurman’s appeal is interlocutory, and is therefore subject to the heightened standard for
discretionary review outlined above. 1 Ms. Thurman has provided no explanation as to why her
appeal presents any extraordinary circumstance that would justify interlocutory review. And she
does not contend that her appeal meets any of the criteria listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It does
not involve a controlling question of law, and according to the Trustee’s undisputed argument,
denial of the extension of time (the outcome sought by Ms. Thurman on appeal) would actually
hinder, and not materially advance the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Ms. Thurman’s appeal.
[Filing No. 6.]
Final judgment shall issue separately.
1
The Court construes Ms. Thurman’s Notice of Appeal as a motion for leave to file an
interlocutory appeal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
2
Date: 1/24/2018
Distribution:
SHARON LYNN THURMAN
6036 E 42nd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46226
Ellen Lynn Triebold
U.S. TRUSTEES OFFICE
ellen.l.triebold@usdoj.gov
3
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?