TAYLOR v. WINNECOUR

Filing 5

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/12/13. (dcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLE L. TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appellant,
v.
RONDA WINNECOUR,
Appellee.

Civil Action No. 12-1900
Judge Cathy Bissoon

-----------------------------------------------------CAROLE L. TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v.
RONDA WINNECOUR,
Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-12
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 2) will be granted.
For essentially the same reasons as stated in Civil Action Nos. 12-1739 and 12-1846,
this appeal is untimely. In her Notice, Appellant purports to challenge a decision of the
Bankruptcy Court dated October 24, 2012. Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.1 The Notice was filed on
November 21, 2012, twenty-eight (28) days after the purportedly challenged ruling. As twice
previously explained by this Court, Bankruptcy Rule 8002 required Appellant to file her Notice
within 14 days of the decision from which she appealed. See Doc. 10 in Civil Action No.
In reality, the decisions challenged by Appellant date back ten months prior to the instant
appeal. See Appellee’s Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 2) at ¶ 7. Even accepting Appellant’s contrary
assertions, her Notice of Appeal is untimely on its face. See discuss in text, infra.
1

12-1739 at pgs. 1-2 (Fischer, J.) (dismissing appeal as untimely under Rule 8002); Doc. 11 in
Civil Action No. 12-1846 at pgs. 5-7 (Schwab, J.) (same). Appellant neither sought nor was
granted an extension of time to file an appeal under Rule 8002(c), and, for the reasons stated in
Civil Action Nos. 12-1739 and 12-1846, the analyses of which are incorporated by reference
herein, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Furthermore, as three times previously explained by this Court, the filing of this appeal is
contrary to the settlement agreement executed between the parties. As explained by Judge
Cercone in Civil Action Nos. 12-752 and 12-753, the Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary
hearing regarding Appellant’s claim that she did not sign the settlement agreement. See Doc. 19
in Civil Action Nos. 12-752 and 12-753 at pg. 3 (Cercone, J.). The Bankruptcy Court found that
Appellant’s assertions were not credible, and that her objections otherwise were without merit.
Id. This issue was fully litigated before the Bankruptcy Court, and Appellant did not timely
appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings. See id. Appellant is bound by the terms of the
settlement agreement, and Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted. See id. (holding same);
see also Doc. 11 in Civil Action No. 12-1846 at 7 n.4 (same).

For all of the reasons stated

above, Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 2) is GRANTED, and this case will be marked
closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 12, 2013

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

2

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Carole L. Taylor
1112 N. Negley Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

3