In Re: Nath ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •     17-1921 (L)
    In re: Nath
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
    ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
    APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
    IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
    ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
    ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
    At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
    Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
    in the City of New York, on the 24th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
    PRESENT:
    DENNIS JACOBS,
    REENA RAGGI,
    PETER W. HALL,
    Circuit Judges.
    _____________________________________
    In re: Prem Nath,
    Debtor,
    _____________________________________
    Prem Nath,
    Debtor-Appellant,
    v.                                                 17-1921 (L),
    17-1924 (Con)
    Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
    Creditor-Appellee.
    _____________________________________
    FOR DEBTOR-APPELLANT:                   Prem Nath, pro se, Orangeburg, NY.
    FOR CREDITOR-APPELLEE:                  Casey B. Howard (Samantha Ingram, on the
    brief), Locke Lord LLP, New York, NY.
    Appeal from two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of New York (Karas, J.).
    UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
    AND DECREED that the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
    Appellant Prem Nath, pro se, appeals from two judgments of the district court, one
    affirming a pair of rulings by the bankruptcy court in Nath’s third bankruptcy, and one
    affirming a ruling by the bankruptcy court in Nath’s fourth bankruptcy. Nath defaulted
    on a home mortgage, and, after years of litigation, a state court issued a foreclosure
    judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, N.A. (“U.S. Bank”) and its servicer, Select Portfolio
    Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”). Nath then filed his third bankruptcy and moved to extend the
    automatic stay to stave off foreclosure. He also moved for sanctions against U.S. Bank,
    SPS, and their attorneys. The bankruptcy court’s denial of both motions is the subject of
    the first of these consolidated appeals. On the eve of the foreclosure sale, Nath filed his
    fourth bankruptcy. U.S. Bank and SPS received relief from the automatic stay in the
    fourth bankruptcy, and Nath’s home was then sold in foreclosure. He then moved to set
    aside the sale as violative of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court’s denial of that
    motion led to the second of these consolidated appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity
    with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
    Bankruptcy court decisions are subject to appellate review in the first instance by
    the district court, pursuant to the statutory scheme articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 158. The
    same section of the code grants jurisdiction to the circuit court to hear appeals from the
    orders of the district court. 
    Id. § 158(d).
    “When a bankruptcy appeal reaches us after
    district court review of the bankruptcy court order, our review of the bankruptcy court order
    is plenary.” In re N. New Eng. Tel. Operations LLC, 
    795 F.3d 343
    , 346 (2d Cir. 2015)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).           “[W]e independently review the factual
    determinations and legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court, evaluating the bankruptcy
    court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    We affirm. Given that Nath was actively challenging the foreclosure judgment
    against him on multiple fronts, the bankruptcy court’s finding that his third bankruptcy was
    not filed in good faith, as required for extension of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.
    § 362(c)(3)(B), was not clearly erroneous, and the bankruptcy court properly denied the
    extension motion. Nath forfeited any challenge to the bankruptcy court’s denial of his
    motion for sanctions by failing to address in his appellate brief one of the independent
    bases in support of that denial: his lack of standing. See, e.g., Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145
    
    2 F.3d 114
    , 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered
    waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”). Finally, it is undisputed that, in
    Nath’s fourth bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge lifted the automatic stay with respect to
    the state foreclosure proceeding, and there was therefore no basis to set aside the
    foreclosure sale.
    We have considered Nath’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district court.1
    FOR THE COURT:
    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
    1
    Appellant has filed a number of frivolous matters in this court, including the appeals
    docketed under 17-806-cv, 17-2019-cv, 17-1921-bk, and 17-1924-bk. Accordingly,
    Appellant is hereby warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly
    meritless appeals, motions, or other papers, will result in the imposition of a sanction,
    which may require Appellant to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any
    further submissions in this Court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 
    9 F.3d 226
    , 229 (2d Cir.
    1993); Sassower v. Sansverie, 
    885 F.2d 9
    , 11 (2d Cir. 1989).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1921 (L)

Filed Date: 7/24/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/24/2018