Smalis v. City of Pittsburgh School District, 684 F. App'x 109

Ernest Smalis filed a pro se adversary action in bankruptcy court seeking recovery of real estate taxes and alleging denial of due process (no annual assessment notices) for two commercial properties while he was incarcerated.
He characterized the suit as related to his ex-wife Despina Smalis’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy (filed 2005).
The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims were not “related to” Ms. Smalis’s administered bankruptcy estate. The court noted the estate was fully administered and the estate/creditors had no interest to be affected.
Smalis filed post-judgment motions (reconsideration and additional attacks); the Bankruptcy Court denied them.
The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal and denials on August 25, 2016; Smalis timely appealed to this Court. The Third Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction because suit was “related to” Ms. Smalis’s Chapter 7 case	Smalis: his tax/constitutional claims are related to Ms. Smalis’s bankruptcy and thus fall within bankruptcy jurisdiction	Appellees: the bankruptcy estate was fully administered; the claims do not affect estate rights or creditors	Court: Not related; no conceivable effect on the administered estate — no jurisdiction
Whether Smalis had standing to litigate on behalf of the bankruptcy estate	Smalis: he could pursue claims connected to the bankruptcy / estate	Appellees: he lacks standing; estate and creditors retain no interest; claims appear personal	Court: Smalis failed to show standing to sue on behalf of estate
Whether post-judgment motions warranted reopening or reversal of dismissal	Smalis: post-judgment filings challenged jurisdictional dismissal	Appellees: motions lack merit; underlying dismissal correct	Court: Bankruptcy Court properly denied motions; no error
Whether appeal presented a substantial question warranting full merits briefing	Smalis: sought review of District Court affirmance	Appellees: issues are insubstantial and appropriate for summary affirmance	Court: Appeal did not present substantial question; summary affirmance granted

Baroda Hill Invs., Ltd. v. Telegroup, Inc., 281 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of appellate review for bankruptcy appeals)
In re Goody’s Family Clothing Inc., 610 F.3d 812 (3d Cir. 2010) (de novo review for legal issues; clear error for facts; abuse of discretion for discretionary rulings)
Binder v. Price Waterhouse & Co., LLP (In re Resorts Int’l, Inc.), 372 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2004) (bankruptcy jurisdiction requires at least "related to" showing)
Schubert v. Lucent Techs. Inc. (In re Winstar Commc’ns, Inc.), 554 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2009) (definition of "related to" jurisdiction — conceivable effect on the estate)
W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 591 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2009) (action is related if it could alter debtor’s rights or impact administration of estate)
Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1984) (classic articulation of the "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction test)
Nuveen Mun. Tr. ex rel. Nuveen High Yield Mun. Bond Fund v. WithumSmith Brown, P.C., 692 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2012) (conceivability of effect determined at time suit filed)
Smalis v. Allegheny Cty. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, Appeal & Review, 632 F. App’x 78 (3d Cir. 2016) (prior affirmance of District Court dismissal under Tax Injunction Act)