Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pawlak v. United States Department of Education

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 1, 2015

IN RE: ELIZABETH JULIA PAWLAK. ELIZABETH JULIA PAWLAK, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this bankruptcy appeal is a motion to dismiss filed by Appellee United States Department of Education ("DOE" or "Appellee"). (ECF No. 6). The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.

I. Background

The facts underlying this bankruptcy appeal were discussed in a prior memorandum opinion adjudicating a separately filed bankruptcy appeal (arising out of the same adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court) and need not be repeated. See In re Pawlak, 520 B.R. 177 (D.Md. 2014). As explained in that opinion, on May 22, 2014, Appellant filed a request for certification for direct interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the May 12, 2014 order of the bankruptcy court granting Appellee's second motion to compel production of documents. Specifically, Ms. Pawlak sought to appeal directly to the Fourth Circuit a bankruptcy court order requiring her to answer in full all of the interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (See ECF No. 1-2). DOE opposed the motion for certification, (ECF No. 1-4), and Ms. Pawlak replied (ECF No. 1-5). On June 26, 2014, United States Bankruptcy Judge Wendelin I. Lipp issued an order denying Ms. Pawlak's motion. Ms. Pawlak followed with a motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 1-7), which DOE opposed (ECF No. 9). Judge Lipp denied the motion for reconsideration on July 18, 2014. (ECF No. 1-10). Subsequently, Ms. Pawlak noted the instant appeal. (ECF No. 1). DOE moved to dismiss the appeal on October 28, 2014, contending that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal (ECF No. 6). Appellant opposed the motion (ECF No. 11), and DOE replied (ECF No. 12).

II. Analysis

The jurisdiction of a district court to hear appeals from bankruptcy courts is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), which provides in relevant part:

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals:
(1) from final judgments, orders, and decrees;

(2) from interlocutory orders and decrees issued under section 1121(d) of title 11 increasing or reducing the time periods referred to in section 1121 of such title; and

(3) with leave of the court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees[.]

28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

The instant appeal presents a narrow issue, correctly summarized by DOE: "whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in not issuing a certification under [28 U.S.C.]§ 158(d)(2) to permit a direct interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit about the discovery orders that this Court in the previous appeal dispatched for lack of jurisdiction." (ECF No. 6-1, at 2). First, Appellant has provided no authority to suggest that orders of the Bankruptcy Court denying a motion to file an interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit (and a motion for reconsideration of that denial) are reviewable on appeal to the district court. See, e.g., Webb v. Driver, 507 F.Appx. 284, 286 (4th Cir. 2013) ("As an initial matter, Webb provides no authority supporting the conclusion that the denial of a request for an interlocutory appeal is itself an appealable order."). The determination of whether to issue a certificate of interlocutory appeal is vested within the discretion of the bankruptcy court, applying the standard in Section 158(d)(2)(A).

Judge Lipp issued an order on June 26, 2014, stating:

Before the Court is the Corrected Plaintiff's Request for Certification for Direct Interlocutory Appeal to [the] Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Motion") and the Opposition thereto filed by the United States Department of Education. The Court has considered the Motion and Opposition and finds an insufficient basis to certify a direct appeal to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.