Singh v. Mariner Post Acute Network, Inc. ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-18-2005
In Re: Mariner Post
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3672
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Mariner Post " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 213.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/213
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-41 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3672
________________
IN RE: MARINER POST ACUTE NETWORK, INC.,
Debtor
RAJ SINGH d/b/a Nursing
Association of America,
Appellant
v.
MARINER POST ACUTE NETWORK, INC.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00208)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 3, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: November 18, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Raj Singh, doing business as Nursing Association of America (NAA), appeals the
District Court’s order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order which granted the Debtor’s
objection to his claim. The procedural history of this case and the details of NAA’s claim
are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s and Bankruptcy Court’s
thorough opinions and orders, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Debtor
objected to NAA’s claim for over $2 million for services rendered by NAA’s employees
at Debtor’s nursing homes. The Bankruptcy Court found that NAA failed to prove its
claim, granted Debtor’s objection, and reclassified and reduced the claim to $50,387.50.
NAA appealed and the District Court affirmed. NAA filed a timely notice of appeal, and
we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291.
Our review of the District Court’s and the Bankruptcy Court’s legal conclusions is
plenary, and we review the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings under the clearly
erroneous standard. In re Indian Palms Associates, Ltd., 61 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir. 1995).
We agree with the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court that NAA has not sustained its
burden of proof for its claim. NAA argued in the District Court that the Debtor does not
have evidence against its claim. However, if an objector sufficiently negates the facts in
the proof of the claim, the burden is on the claimant to prove the claim by a
preponderance of the evidence. The burden of persuasion always rests with the claimant.
In re Allegheny Intern., Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 174 (3d Cir. 1992). The Debtor presented
2
sufficient proof to negate the claim, and NAA failed to sustain its burden of proof.
NAA’s arguments concerning fraud and estoppel are without merit.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6.
3