Mehta v. Havis

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 26, 2006
_____________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-20173 Clerk
Summary Calendar
_____________________
In The Matter Of: BAQAR SHAH,
Debtor.
-------------------------------
MHENDRA R. MEHTA,
Appellant,
versus
KENNETH HAVIS, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
C.A. No. H-05-2456
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Mhendra R. Mehta appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order that approved a compromise
between the trustee and multiple parties that had purchased real
property from the Debtor prior to the bankruptcy filing. The
district court dismissed Mehta’s appeal because he failed to file
a brief with the district court within the time specified in
Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1) -- or in the four months that followed.
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
In bankruptcy cases, we review actions taken by the district court
in its appellate role for abuse of discretion. In re CPDC Inc.,
221 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000).
The appeal before the district court arose out of a compromise
between the bankruptcy trustee and several parties who had
purchased real property from the debtor prior to his filing of a
voluntary Chapter 7 petition for relief on February 6, 2001. The
trustee filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to approve the
compromise on July 8, 2003. After an evidentiary hearing, in which
Mehta participated, the compromise was approved by the bankruptcy
court. Mehta filed two motions to reconsider, both of which were
denied. The order was finalized on June 6, 2005 and the compromise
has since been fully consummated. Mehta’s appeal to the district
court was docketed on July 15, 2005. Under Bankruptcy Rule
8009(a)(1), Mehta’s brief was due fifteen days later. On December
1, 2005, some four months after the due date, still having received
no brief nor any request for an extension, the district court
entered an order dismissing Mehta’s appeal. Mehta then filed a
motion to vacate the order and reinstate his appeal; yet, he
provided no reasonable explanation for his failure to file a brief.
The district court denied the motion. Mehta has now appealed to
this court, but again has not provided any justification for his
complete failure to file a brief. Under these circumstances, the
2
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mehta’s
appeal.2
Mehta also appeals the district court’s order striking certain
record designations on appeal. It is uncontested that the
documents that Mehta sought to designate were not introduced as
evidence before the bankruptcy court. Mehta does not offer reasons
for his failure to provide these documents in the bankruptcy
hearing, nor does he offer any explanation as to how his case is
prejudiced by their exclusion. In short, the district court did
not err in refusing to permit Mehta to designate documents for
appellate review that were never considered by the bankruptcy
court.
Finally, in his reply brief, Mehta challenges the merits of
the bankruptcy court’s order, arguing that the court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to approve this compromise. Not only are the
merits of the order not before us, Mehta’s untimely argument has no
merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court
dismissing Mehta’s appeal is
2
We note that another panel of this court was recently
presented with facts involving Mehta that are nearly identical to
those presented here. In re Shah, No. 06-20161, 2006 WL 2683386(5th Cir. 2006) (Slip Copy). In that case, Mehta appealed an order
of the bankruptcy court finding him in civil contempt and
sanctioning him. Mehta failed to file a brief in that case and the
district court dismissed his appeal. This court affirmed, holding
that “[g]iven the history of Mehta’s refusal to obey court orders,
his delaying tactics, and missed deadlines, the district court did
not err in dismissing this appeal.” Id. at *1.
3
AFFIRMED.
4