462 B.R. 510
Bankr. M.D. Penn.2011Background
- City Council of Harrisburg filed a Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition on October 11, 2011.
- Commonwealth, Dauphin County and others objected; a hearing occurred November 23, 2011.
- The court announced it would dismiss the petition and issued an oral ruling and written opinion thereafter.
- Order of dismissal entered November 23, 2011, with the written opinion docketed December 5, 2011.
- City Council filed a Notice of Appeal and subsequently moved for an extension of time to file the appeal under Rule 8002.
- The court denied the motion, struck the Notice of Appeal, and held City Council failed to show excusable neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City Council's extension motion was timely under Rule 8002 | City Council argued timing within rule allowances | Court incorrect about deadline calculation | Motion denied; appeal not timely |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108 (3d Cir.2011) (jurisdictional, mandatory time limits for appeals)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (jurisdictional defects not waivable)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (four-factor test for excusable neglect)
- Shareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873 (3d Cir.1997) (excusable neglect analysis in Third Circuit context)
- In re Netversant Solutions, Inc., 426 B.R. 503 (Bankr.D.Del.2010) (excusable neglect not found for lack of client authority)