Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    In Re Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., Debtor, Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., and Glen E. Keller, JR., Trustee, 21 F.3d 1120, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The order affirms the district court's dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal failed to include the names of all parties to the underlying judgment as required by Rule 8001(a), which is a jurisdictional requirement. As the notice did not name all parties, the district court and appellate court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    In Re Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., Debtor, Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., and Glen E. Keller, JR., Trustee, 21 F.3d 1120, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The order affirms the district court's dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal failed to include the names of all parties to the underlying judgment as required by Rule 8001(a), which is a jurisdictional requirement. As the notice did not name all parties, the district court and appellate court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-04-22 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 21 F.3d 1120 Docket: 94-1034

    Original Title

    In Re Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., Debtor, Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., and Glen E. Keller, Jr., Trustee, 21 F.3d 1120, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The order affirms the district court's dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal failed to include the names of all parties to the underlying judgment as required by Rule 8001(a), which is a jurisdictional requirement. As the notice did not name all parties, the district court and appellate court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views3 pages

    In Re Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., Debtor, Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., and Glen E. Keller, JR., Trustee, 21 F.3d 1120, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The order affirms the district court's dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal failed to include the names of all parties to the underlying judgment as required by Rule 8001(a), which is a jurisdictional requirement. As the notice did not name all parties, the district court and appellate court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    21 F.

    3d 1120
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    In re BLINDER, ROBINSON & COMPANY, INC., Debtor,


    SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    BLINDER, ROBINSON & COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
    and
    Glen E. KELLER, Jr., Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 94-1034.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    April 22, 1994.

    Before LOGAN, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Appellant, George T. Dib, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court's
    dismissal of an appeal of the bankruptcy court's order which denied Dib's
    motion to reconsider his customer claim dispute in the core liquidation case of
    In re Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., Ch. 7 Case No. 90-12654, Adv. No. 901170 (D. Colo. Oct. 20, 1993).

    The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in its determination
    that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because appellant had failed to
    comply with Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8001(a) when he filed his notice of appeal.

    Rule 8001(a) sets forth that an appeal from a final judgment of the bankruptcy
    court:

    5 shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk within the time allowed
    ...
    by Rule 8002. Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of
    a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for
    such action as the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel deems appropriate,
    which may include dismissal of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall conform
    substantially to the appropriate Official Form [here, Form 17], shall contain the
    names of all parties to the judgment, order, or decree appealed from and the names,
    addresses and telephone numbers of their respective attorneys, and be accompanied
    by the prescribed fee....
    6

    Rule 8001(a) grants the district court broad discretion to take any appropriate
    action, including dismissal of the appeal, for failure to comply with nonjurisdictional steps. See Matter of Bulic, 997 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir.1993).
    However, the failure to name a party in the notice of appeal goes directly to
    jurisdiction. Storage Technology v. U.S. District Court for the District of Colo.,
    934 F.2d 244, 247 (10th Cir.1991). "The failure to name a party is more than
    excusable 'informality'; it constitutes a failure of that party to appeal." Torres v.
    Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314 (1988) (interpreting Fed. R.App. P.
    3(c)). Our court has applied the Torres rationale to bankruptcy appeals. Storage
    Technology, 934 F.2d at 247-48; In re Woosley, 855 F.2d 687, 688 (10th
    Cir.1988). Moreover, the strict jurisdictional requirements for notices of appeal,
    pursuant to Rule 8001(a), are applicable to pro se litigants. In re Frontier
    Airlines, Inc., 108 B.R. 277, 279 (D. Colo.1989).

    Dib's notice of appeal named Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. as debtor,
    Securities Investor Protection Corp. as plaintiff, and Blinder, Robinson &
    Company as defendant. The district court found that this notice (1) does not
    contain the names of all parties to the judgment; (2) does not contain the names
    of the attorneys for the parties; (3) does not contain the address and telephone
    number of Dib as a pro se litigant; (4) does not contain the address and
    telephone numbers of the attorneys for the appellee or appellee' and (5) does
    not substantially conform with Official Form 17.

    Because the notice of appeal does not contain the names of the parties to the

    judgement we hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction over this
    appeal. In so doing, we need not decide whether the other defects in the notice
    of appeal would be sufficient to deny the district court jurisdiction.
    9

    We AFFIRM.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    You might also like