SMALIS v. SMALIS

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM ORDER. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Order filed herewith, the Order of the bankruptcy court dated September 15, 2015, denying Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, is AFFIRMED. Appellant's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Appellee (Doc. 15 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/29/16. (rld) Staff Notes: A copy of the Memorandum Order was mailed to Appellant at his address of record via First-Class U.S. Mail.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:
DESPINA SMALIS,

)
)
)
)

Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 05-31587-CMB
Chapter 7
Adversary No. 12-2140-CMB

____________________________________
ERNEST SMALIS,
Appellant,
v.
DESPINA SMALIS,
Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-1269
Judge Cathy Bissoon

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Ernest Smalis (“Appellant” or “Mr. Smalis”) appeals the bankruptcy court’s final order
denying his “Motion for Reconsideration from Order of Court Motio(s) [sic] Denied for Reasons
Set Forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion Entered in the Above-Captioned Bankruptcy
Case” (“Motion for Reconsideration”). (Doc. 1-1). Therein, Mr. Smalis sought reconsideration
of the bankruptcy court’s Order dated July 7, 2015 (“July 7th Order”) denying “Plaintiff Ernest
Smalis Motion to Deem Settlement Agreement Defective and Void [and] Plaintiff Ernest Smalis
Motion to Bar debtor from Legal Proceedings in Bankruptcy Pursuant to the Doctrine of Judicial
Estoppel” (the “Smalis Motions”). In connection with the instant appeal, Mr. Smalis filed an
additional Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Appellee. (Doc. 15).
On appeal to the district court, the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court are subject to
de novo review. Donaldson v. Bernstein, 104 F.3d 547, 551 (3d Cir.1997); Chemetron Corp. v.
Jones, 72 F.3d 341, 345 (3d Cir. 1995). Findings of fact, however, are set aside only if “clearly
erroneous.” See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; Chemetron, 72 F.3d at 345; In re Indian Palms Assocs.,

Ltd., 61 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir. 1995). The Court reviews the denial of motions for
reconsideration “under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” In re Srinivasan, 2011 WL
3040216, *4 (D.N.J. 2011) (citing Churchill v. Star Enterprises, 183 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir.
1999)); see Marcus Lee Assocs., L.P. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 206126, *1 (E.D. Pa.
2006) (citing McDowell v. Phila. Housing Auth., 423 F.3d 233, 238 (3d Cir. 2005)); see also
North River Ins. Co. v. Cygnet Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1203 (3d Cir. 1995); Lorenz v.
Griffith, 12 F.3d 23, 26 (3d Cir. 1993). “A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion when its ruling
rests upon an error of law or a misapplication of law to the facts.” Utica Leaseco, LLC v. GMI
Land Co., LLC, 2011 WL 2458065 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (citing In re O’Brian Envtl Energy, Inc.,
188 F.3d 116, 122 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Hanover Potato Products, Inc. v. Shalala, 989 F.2d
123, 127 (3d Cir. 1993) (“An abuse of discretion arises when the district court’s decision rests
upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application
of law to fact.”) (internal citations omitted).
Bankruptcy court Judge Böhm engaged in an exhaustive review of the entirety of
Appellant’s submissions before her, and further heard Mr. Smalis’s arguments at a hearing on
June 9, 2015, 2015, before denying his underlying motions. (See July 7th Opinion). Appellant
sought reconsideration of the denial, and Judge Böhm, once again, engaged in thorough and
thoughtful review of his arguments and submissions, and held an additional hearing on
September 10, 2015; Appellant’s motion for reconsideration subsequently was denied. (Doc. 11, Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 15, 2015). That denial is appealed herein. After a
thorough review of Appellant’s briefing; Appellee’s response; the record before the Bankruptcy
Court in connection with both the July 7th Order and the September 15th Order; and the exhibits
submitted in connection with the instant appeal, the Court concurs with the factual and legal

2

findings of Judge Böhm, and hereby incorporates said findings and conclusions of the September
15, 2015 Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 1-1) as the opinion of the District Court. Appellant has
failed to demonstrate any basis on which to conclude that the appealed ruling rested upon an
error of law or a misapplication of law to the facts. The appeal will be denied, and the
Memorandum Order of the bankruptcy court, dated September 15, 2015, will be affirmed.
Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Appellee (Doc. 15) will be denied as
moot.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Order of the bankruptcy court dated September 15,
2015, denying Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration, is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s Motion to
Disqualify Counsel for Appellee (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 29, 2016

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
ERNEST SMALIS
6652 Northumberland St
Pittsburgh, PA 15217

3