Mehta v. Havis

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D In the November 3, 2006 United States Court of Appeals Charles R. Fulbruge III for the Fifth Circuit Clerk _______________ m 06-20130 Summary Calendar _______________ IN THE MATTER OF: BAQAR SHAH, Debtor. MAHENDRA R. MEHTA, Appellant, VERSUS KENNETH R. HAVIS, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, Appellee _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas m 4:05-CR-3205 ______________________________ Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to Circuit Judges. consider the compromise between the trustee and the settling property owners. JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:* We affirm the dismissal for failure to file a Mahendra Mehta appeals the district brief in the district court, and we conclude we court’s dismissal of his appeal from the bank- lack appellate jurisdiction to consider whether ruptcy court for failing to file a timely appel- the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the late brief. We affirm. compromise. Because the appeal was properly dismissed, we do not reach the propriety of the I. district court’s grant of the trustee’s motion to Mehta is a creditor of Baqar Shah. After strike. Shah had filed for bankruptcy, the trustee, Kenneth Havis, moved for approval of a com- II. promise between the trustee and numerous in- We first confront the charge that the bank- dividuals who were allegedly recipients of ruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to approve the fraudulent transfers. Those individuals had compromise that underlies this appeal. We purchased real property from Shah before he have no jurisdiction here to opine on whether filed for bankruptcy. Mehta filed objections to the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction because, the motion, but the bankruptcy court approved as we conclude in part III, infra, no proper the compromise. appeal was pursued in the district court. In other words, despite our obligation in the usu- Mehta appealed, and the appeal was dock- al case to inquire sua sponte into a lower eted with the district court. Though he filed court’s jurisdiction, see Mitchell v. Maurer, his statement of issues and record designa- 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934), we lack the power tions, Mehta did not file an appellate brief to do so if the actions of that court are not within the time specified in Federal Rule of properly appealed so as to bring the matter to Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a)(1). After the us in a procedurally valid manner. appeal had been filed in the district court, the trustee moved to strike some of Mehta’s des- III. ignations, and that court granted the motion. We review the district court’s dismissal of The court denied Mehta’s motion to vacate its Mehta’s appeal for abuse of discretion “with order striking his designations and dismissed attention to the prejudicial effect of delay on the appeal for failure to prosecute by failing to the appellees and the bona fides of the appel- file an appellate brief. lant.” Zer-Ilan v. Frankford (In re CPDC Inc.), 221 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000). Mehta appeals the dismissal. In his reply “Dismissal is a harsh and drastic sanction that brief filed in this court, he claims that the is not appropriate in all cases,” but Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8001(a) pro- vides district courts the discretion to dismiss * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de- an appeal. Id. at 699. The district court did termined that this opinion should not be published not commit any legal error in its ruling, and its and is not precedent except under the limited cir- order shows no indication that it failed to cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 weigh the severity of the sanction against the extent of Mehta’s violation of rule 8009. The court had discretion to dismiss the appeal, and it did not abuse that discretion. The judgment of the district court, dismiss- ing the appeal from the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED.1 1 We deny the trustee’s request for an award of fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Proce- dure 38. 3