Robert W. Jager and Margaret M. Jager, 609 B.R. 156

Background

Debtors Robert and Margaret Jager filed a small-business Chapter 11 on July 30, 2018 and sought to retain a 55-acre farm containing large manure piles that PA DEP had ordered remediated.
PA DEP issued a Field Order (Sept. 1, 2015) and the Commonwealth Court entered enforcement orders (July 27, 2016; Feb. 1, 2017) requiring removal/land-application or covered storage of accumulated manure; the Debtors were later found in contempt for noncompliance.
During the bankruptcy the Debtors repeatedly promised remediation but failed to complete it; the court granted a 60-day continuance (July 2, 2019 Order) conditioning further proceedings on complete remediation and warning that failure would result in dismissal with prejudice (180-day bar to refiling).
PA DEP inspected after the 60-day period and reported continuing noncompliance; the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice on September 5, 2019.
Debtors filed a pro se Motion to Reconsider (received Sept. 23, 2019), arguing they had complied (or were only responsible for post-purchase manure), challenged state-court orders, claimed judicial bias, and requested further confirmation proceedings; the court denied reconsideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jager)	Defendant's Argument (Court / PA DEP / InFirst)	Held
1. Whether the dismissal with prejudice should be vacated because Debtors complied with manure-removal requirements	Jager: they remediated the manure they were responsible for (post-purchase) and thus complied with the July 2 Order	Court / PA DEP: state and bankruptcy orders required remediation of all identified manure piles regardless of origin; inspection showed noncompliance	Denied — record shows Debtors agreed to and failed to complete full remediation; dismissal affirmed
2. Whether the Debtors may collaterally attack state-court remediation orders in this proceeding	Jager: state orders contain procedural and substantive errors and are unenforceable	Court: Debtors had notice for years, did not timely appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review final state-court judgments (Rooker–Feldman)	Denied — collateral attack inappropriate; state orders treated as binding for remediation scope
3. Whether the judge must recuse for alleged age bias	Jager: claimed the court was biased/hesitant to grant relief because of their age	Court: exchanges about age related solely to plan feasibility; no basis shown for recusal; no affidavit under §144	Denied — no objective basis for disqualification; rulings alone do not establish bias
4. Whether further confirmation proceedings were required or a confirmation hearing should have been held	Jager: requested a final confirmation hearing on their proposed plan	Court / InFirst: remediation was a prerequisite to any feasible plan; Debtors’ plan relied on speculative funding and unproven lawsuits and lacked disclosure; Debtors administratively insolvent	Denied / moot — plan infeasible and procedurally incomplete; remediation failure precluded confirmation

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
Penn Terra Ltd. v. Dept. of Envtl. Res., 733 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1984) (bankruptcy does not excuse compliance with environmental law)
Mid Atl. Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494 (1986) (environmental obligations remain enforceable despite bankruptcy)
Knapper v. Bankers Trust Co. (In re Knapper), 407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) (Rooker–Feldman limits federal courts from reviewing final state-court judgments)
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004) (trial judges have no obligation to serve as counsel for pro se litigants)
United States v. Haas (In re Haas), 162 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 1998) (debtor's age may bear on plan feasibility)
In re W.R. Grace & Co., 729 F.3d 332 (3d Cir. 2013) (plans hinging on speculative litigation revenue are not feasible)