In re: Peter Paul Mitrano
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying debtor Peter Paul Mitrano's 24 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 5/23/2012 22 , 23 memorandum opinion and order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/13/2012. (cc: Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court; appellant; attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
IN RE: PETER PAUL MITRANO,
Debtor.
Bankruptcy No. 10-20476
PETER PAUL MITRANO,
Appellant,
vs.
Civil Action No. 2:11-0455
HELEN M. MORRIS, Trustee,
Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is debtor Peter Paul Mitrano’s motion for
reconsideration of the May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion and order
dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court.
First, Mr. Mitrano asserts that his due process rights
were violated inasmuch as he was unaware that the trustee sought
transfer of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412.
As noted by
the court at pages 3-4 of the May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion
and order, the trustee specifically mentioned section 1412 in her
objection to venue below.
The assertion is thus not meritorious.
Second, Mr. Mitrano asserts that there was insufficient
evidence supporting the transfer decision.
case.
That is not the
The objective proof supporting the transfer decision,
namely, inter alia, the location of the assets in the case,
debtor’s residence, and the economical and efficient
administration of the case, all pointed to the transferee
district.
The assertion is thus not meritorious.
Third, Mr. Mitrano contends that “this Court waived the
position that this appeal should have been treated as an
interlocutory appeal that this Court would entertain, when this
Court, in fact, entertained this appeal.”
meaning of this challenge is unclear.
(Mot. at 3).
The
As noted at page 16 of the
May 23, 2012, memorandum opinion and order, the appeal was
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) inasmuch as the venue
transfer order was interlocutory in nature and hence
unappealable.
The court additionally noted, in the alternative,
that the venue transfer decision would survive appellate scrutiny
in the event that appellate jurisdiction was later deemed to
exist.
The assertion is thus not meritorious.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, Mr. Mitrano has
presented no ground justifying reconsideration of the May 23,
2012, memorandum opinion and order.
It is, accordingly, ORDERED
that the motion to reconsider be, and it hereby is, denied.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
opinion and order to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court, counsel
of record, and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER: July 13, 2012
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
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?