Pawlak v. United States Department of Education et al
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
Civil Action No. DKC 15-2665
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(“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”).
On April 20, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to remand this
action to bankruptcy court, “[f]or the reason apparent from the
(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.
(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.”
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 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[.]”
Based on Appellant’s motion and
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
(ECF No. 13).
Appellee responded (ECF No. 14), and
Appellant filed a reply and a supplemental to her reply (ECF
intention to seek a voluntary dismissal of her appeal.
she argues that she sought an order remanding the action “solely
While Appellant initially filed this email under seal, she
filed it publicly as an exhibit to the pending motion. (ECF No.
jurisdiction over the appeal by this District Court.”
13, at 2).
Appellant also argues that, “most importantly, it
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.
(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).
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).
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
Appellant did not request, and Appellee did not consent to, this
court retaining jurisdiction over her appeal when the action was
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
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
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?