Yan Sui v. Richard Marshack , 691 F. App'x 372 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: YAN SUI, No. 16-60081
Debtor. BAP No. 16-1231
______________________________
YAN SUI; PEI-YU YANG, MEMORANDUM*
Appellants,
v.
RICHARD A. MARSHACK; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Faris, Lafferty, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui and non-debtor Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from a
judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing Sui’s appeal for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
lack of standing. We must determine our own jurisdiction sua sponte. Special
Investments, Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss
for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
On May 5, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying Sui’s
motion challenging the validity of claims filed in his bankruptcy case. On May 19,
2016, Sui refiled his motion seeking identical relief. On July 8, 2016, the
bankruptcy court entered an order denying Sui’s second motion. Sui filed a notice
of appeal on July 19, 2016.
We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Sui did not appeal from the
bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 8002(a)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court
from a bankruptcy court must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 8002); Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the
filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the
issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal
period); see also Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th
Cir. 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the
untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to
2 16-60081
review the bankruptcy court’s order.”).
All pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.
3 16-60081