J&V Developers, Inc. v. Malloy
707 F. App'x 755
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Bankruptcy Court (Aug 2015) granted summary judgment to J&V Developers and held a fee award against Deborah Malloy nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
- Edward Malloy moved to intervene (Aug 12, 2016) and both Edward and Deborah filed motions for reconsideration (Aug 14–15, 2016); the Bankruptcy Court denied the motions on Sept 9, 2016.
- The Malloys filed a notice of appeal to the District Court (docketed Sept 23, 2016).
- The District Court dismissed the appeal (Nov 8, 2016) for failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009 (designation of record and statement of issues), and denied reconsideration.
- The Malloys appealed the District Court’s dismissal to this Court; this Court reviews dismissal for abuse of discretion and found the District Court gave no explanation for dismissal.
- This Court vacated and remanded for the District Court to explain and re-evaluate whether dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly dismissed appeal for failure to comply with Rule 8009 | Malloys effectively sought to preserve appeal despite procedural lapse; dismissal was inappropriate without considering prejudice or bad faith | District Court may dismiss under Rule 8003(a)(2) when appellant fails to take required steps | Vacated and remanded: dismissal without explanation was an abuse of discretion because court must consider factors (e.g., prejudice, bad faith) and explain its reasoning |
| Whether District Court should have refrained from acting pending Deborah’s separate appeal to this Court | Malloys argued District Court should not proceed while another appeal (C.A. No. 16-2767) was pending | J&V (and District Court) proceeded; parallel proceedings were permissible | Malloys’ argument rejected: this Court had stayed No. 16-2767 pending resolution here, so District Court’s action was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir. 1992) (standard of review for district court dismissal for procedural defaults)
- Livera v. First Nat’l State Bank of N.J., 879 F.2d 1186 (3d Cir. 1989) (appellate review of district court discretion requires adequate explanation)
- In re Comer, 716 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1983) (procedural noncompliance does not mandate dismissal absent prejudice or bad faith)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (factors to consider before dismissing a case for procedural defaults)
- Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1987) (district court must provide reasons to allow meaningful appellate review)