Pawlak v. United States Department of Education et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 13 motion to reopen case and amend the Order of April 22, 2016 (c/m to Appellant 12/22/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/22/2016. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN RE: ELIZABETH JULIA PAWLAK
:
_________________________________
:
ELIZABETH JULIA PAWLAK
Appellant
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 15-2665
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al.
Appellees
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On
September
9,
2015,
Appellant
Elizabeth
Julia
Pawlak
(“Appellant”) filed an appeal from an order of Bankruptcy Judge
Wendelin I. Lipp granting default judgment in favor of Appellee
United States Department of Education (“Appellee”).
1).
(ECF No.
On April 20, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to remand this
action to bankruptcy court, “[f]or the reason apparent from the
enclosed Exhibits.”
(ECF No. 9).
Appellant’s exhibits were a
medical report and an email from Appellee’s counsel referencing
Appellant’s news regarding a medical condition.
10-1).
(ECF Nos. 10;
Counsel’s email suggested that Appellant seek remand to
allow her “to supplement the record and make a showing that this
condition is one that will qualify [her] for an undue hardship
exemption and discharge.
Then it will be up to us to take a
position . . ., and then the bankruptcy court can decide.”
(ECF
Nos. 10-1; 13-4, at 3-4).1
Based on those exhibits, the court
determined that Appellant sought to remand this action in order
to supplement the record in light of new circumstances and allow
the
bankruptcy
court
proceedings
therefore
construed
the
voluntary
dismissal
pursuant
Procedure 8023.
motion
to
to
to
continue.
remand
Federal
as
Rule
The
a
court
motion
of
for
Bankruptcy
The rule provides: “An appeal may be dismissed
on the appellant’s motion on terms agreed to by the parties or
fixed by the district court[.]”
the
attached
email
from
Based on Appellant’s motion and
Appellee’s
counsel
effectively
consenting to the motion, the court granted Appellant’s motion,
remanded this case to the bankruptcy court, denied Appellant’s
other pending motions as moot, and directed the clerk to close
this case on April 22, 2016.
(ECF Nos. 11; 12).
On June 30, 2016, as the remanded case was proceeding,
Appellant filed the instant motion to reopen and amend the April
22 order.
(ECF No. 13).
Appellee responded (ECF No. 14), and
Appellant filed a reply and a supplemental to her reply (ECF
Nos.
15;
16).
Appellant
now
contends
that
it
was
intention to seek a voluntary dismissal of her appeal.
not
her
Instead,
she argues that she sought an order remanding the action “solely
for
settlement
conferences
and
1
negotiations
while
retaining
While Appellant initially filed this email under seal, she
filed it publicly as an exhibit to the pending motion. (ECF No.
13-4).
2
jurisdiction over the appeal by this District Court.”
13, at 2).
appears
(ECF No.
Appellant also argues that, “most importantly, it
that
despite
[]
the
order
of
April
22,
2016,
the
undersigned is also ‘out of court’ in the bankruptcy court” (id.
at 3), citing Judge Lipp’s June 21, 2016, order denying her
motion for a stay of collection efforts (ECF No. 13-10).
Appellant’s argument is belied by the facts, and she has
not shown grounds for reconsideration.
Her motion to remand
contained no reference to settlement proceedings.
9; 10-1).
(See ECF Nos.
Appellant represented that the parties were seeking
remand to supplement the record and have the bankruptcy court
decide if she had shown that she qualified for an undue hardship
exemption and discharge.
(ECF Nos. 10-1; 13-4, at 3-4).
As she
similarly represented to the bankruptcy court on May 31, 2016,
she “filed with the district court a motion to remand the matter
to this bankruptcy court in order to supplement the record in
light of new circumstances.”
(ECF No. 13-5, at 1-2).
It was
not until after the bankruptcy court denied her motion to stay
collection efforts, two months after remand, that she filed this
motion for reconsideration in an attempt to cabin the bankruptcy
court’s jurisdiction “to the parties[’] settlement discussions
and
proposed
settlement.”
(ECF
No.
13,
at
1).
Further,
Appellant did not request, and Appellee did not consent to, this
court retaining jurisdiction over her appeal when the action was
3
remanded.
Appellant’s
proceedings
does
not
dissatisfaction
merit
reopening
with
her
the
subsequent
appeal.
Appellant
fails to set forth any basis for the court to reconsider its
April 22 order.
Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of December, 2016, by the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland,
ORDERED that:
1.
The motion to reopen case and amend the Order of April
22, 2016, filed by Appellant Elizabeth Julia Pawlak (ECF No. 13)
BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.
Opinion
The
and
clerk
Order
will
transmit
directly
to
copies
Appellant
of
and
the
to
Memorandum
counsel
for
Appellee.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
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?