eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 2005-06

Georges v. Georges (In Re Georges) , 138 F. App'x 403 ( 2005 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-15-2005
In re: Georges
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3080
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In re: Georges " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1011.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1011
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3080
IN RE: GEORGE A. GEORGES,
Debtor
GEORGE A. GEORGES,
Appellant
v.
JEAN D. GEORGES
CHRISTINE C. SHUBERT, ESQ. CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,
Trustee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 03-cv-05225)
District Court Judge: The Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 26, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and ALITO and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: June 15, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Because we write only for the parties, we do not set forth the facts of this case.
George A. Georges (“Mr. Georges”) challenges the District Court’s finding that his
appeal of the dismissal to reopen his bankruptcy case under
    11 U.S.C. § 524
     was moot.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d) and
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . For the
reason stated below, we affirm the District Court.
I.
We review a district court’s review of a final order of a bankruptcy court in a
plenary fashion. In re Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
    145 F.3d 124
    , 130 (3d Cir. 1998). This
includes a district court’s decision on mootness. State of N.J., Dept. of Env’t Protection
and Energy v. Heldor Indus. Inc.,
    989 F.2d 702
    , 705 (3d. Cir. 1993).
II.
Mr. Georges argues that the reopening of his bankruptcy case solely for the
purpose of filing a complaint to determine dischargeability of the debt under
    11 U.S.C. § 523
    (a) does not moot his appeal of a prior denial of a motion to reopen his case to enforce
discharge under
    11 U.S.C. § 524
    . Mr. Georges premises his argument on the assertion
that reopening a bankruptcy case under
    11 U.S.C. § 523
    (a) does not address the
superseding question of whether the prosecution of a pending equitable distribution action
2
brought by his ex-wife should have been stayed by his May 6 bankruptcy discharge
pursuant to
    11 U.S.C. § 524
    .
Under Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the
ability to entertain only cases and controversies. Article III requires that an actual
controversy exist through all stages of litigation, including appellate review. United
States v. Kissinger,
    309 F.3d 179
    , 180 (3d Cir. 2002). As a result, a case should be
dismissed as moot where “developments occur during the course of adjudication that
eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from
being able to grant the requested relief....” Morris v. Nationalist Movement,
    273 F.3d 527
    , 533 (3d Cir. 2001).
Mr. Georges’ appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his
bankruptcy case under
    11 U.S.C. § 524
     is now moot. The discharge injunction Mr.
Georges’
    11 U.S.C. § 524
     motion requested against his ex-wife’s then pending equitable
distribution claim in state court can no longer be granted since the state court has since
issued an equitable distribution order. Because Mr. George’s
    11 U.S.C. § 524
     motion is
now moot, we need not address whether a debtor in bankruptcy facing a pending
equitable distribution claim that has not yet been disposed of in the state court is entitled
to the discharge of the equitable distribution claim.
For the foregoing reason, we affirm the order of the District Court.