Camil Kreit v. Christopher Quinn, 690 F. App'x 283

Dr. Kreit, a member and manager of Cleveland Imaging & Surgical Hospital, was involved in a Texas receivership where a receiver managed the Hospital and its assets.
The receiver filed for Chapter 11 on the Hospital’s behalf, triggering 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay.
The bankruptcy court approved the Hospital’s asset sale to Acquisition on August 21, 2015; the sale order became final on September 8, 2015.
In November 2015, Kreit sent letters alleging misconduct by Hospital members and bidding irregularities, including to a U.S. Deputy AG, U.S. Attorney’s Office, FTC personnel, and a Texas official.
The Hospital sought contempt in bankruptcy court; the court held Kreit’s letters violated § 362(a)(1), (3) and impermissibly collateral attacked prior orders, and imposed damages.
On June 2, 2016, the bankruptcy court imposed stipulated damages; Kreit agreed to pay by August 2, 2016, and faced additional penalties if he did not.
Kreit appealed the sanctions to the district court; the district court denied his motions to extend the filing deadline and to file out of time, and the court dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the sanctions order.	Kreit challenges jurisdiction based on Rooker-Feldman ab initio exception.	Quinn argues Rooker-Feldman bars review of state court judgments.	Jurisdiction is present; the Texas court had authority, and the issue is resolved on merits.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying extension and out-of-time filing.	Kreit contends the delay was justified and the court should permit filing.	Quinn argues dismissal for failure to timely file is appropriate.	District court did not abuse its discretion; timely filing was not shown.

In re Braniff Airways, Inc., 774 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1985) (bankruptcy appeals dismissed for failure to prosecute when brief not timely filed)
Aguiluz v. Bayhi (In re Bayhi), 528 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2008) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine and abstention principles in bankruptcy appeals)
Keeler v. Acad. of Am. Franciscan History, Inc. (In re Keeler), 273 B.R. 416 (D. Md. 2002) (ab initio void exception to Rooker-Feldman considered)
Lake v. Capps (In re Lake), 202 B.R. 751 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996) (void ab initio and jurisdictional limits considerations in bankruptcy appeals)
James v. Draper (In re James), 940 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1991) (recognition of ab initio exception by some circuits)
Ferren v. Searcy Winnelson Co. (In re Ferren), 203 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2000) (rejecting void ab initio approach in certain contexts)
Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009) (considerations on jurisdiction and bankruptcy enforcement)