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