United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge
before the court are several motions to quash filed
in response to appellant Lundes Garrett's pro se
bankruptcy appeal, (Doc. 1). These motions were
filed by the following appellees: Duane Morris LLP and Brett
L. Messinger (collectively, the “Duane
appellees”), (Doc. 3); Kristine M. Anthou,
Elizabeth M. Cagnon, and Grenen & Birsic PC
(collectively, the “Grenen appellees”), (Doc.
4); JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JPMorgan”),
(Doc. 5); and PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
(“Pennymac”), (Doc. 6). In addition,
before the court are duplicate motions filed by the Grenen
appellees, (Doc. 7), and Pennymac, (Doc.
9). Based on the foregoing, the appellees'
original motions, (Docs. 3-6), will be
GRANTED and appellant Lundes Garrett's pro se
bankruptcy appeal, (Doc. 1), will be dismissed as
the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his appeal.
The Grenen appellees' and Pennymac's duplicate
motions, (Docs. 7, 9), will be dismissed as
February 24, 2017, Mr. Garrett, proceeding pro se,
filed a notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court for the
United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. (See Doc. 1 at 1). Mr.
Garrett's notice of appeal was docketed in this court on
February 27, 2017. (Id.). Mr. Garrett sought to
appeal the February 6, 2017 order of the bankruptcy court
dismissing his adversary complaint arising out of his
underlying Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. On March 6, 2017,
the Duane appellees filed one of the current motions seeking
to quash Mr. Garrett's appeal. (Doc.
3). The Duane appellees' motion was followed by
identical motions from the Grenen appellees on March 7, 2017,
(Doc. 4), from JPMorgan on March 9, 2017, (Doc.
5), and from Pennymac on March 13, 2017, (Doc.
6). On March 31, 2017, the Grenen appellees filed an
identical motion to quash, with a brief in support.
(Docs. 7-8). On April 10, 2017, JPMorgan
also filed an identical motion to quash with a brief
in support. (Docs. 9-10).
appellees seek dismissal of Mr. Garrett's appeal based on
the untimeliness of his notice of appeal and his failure to
follow the timelines set forth in Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. The appellees allege that
this failure deprives the court of subject-matter
jurisdiction over Mr. Garrett's appeal. Mr. Garrett has
not responded to any of the filings submitted by the
appellees and the motions are now ripe for review.
See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8013(a)(3).
court agrees with the appellees that Mr. Garrett's notice
of appeal is untimely, leaving this court without
subject-matter jurisdiction over his appeal. District Courts
have jurisdiction over final judgments, orders, and decrees
of a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(1). In order to
obtain jurisdiction, however, Rule 8002 provides that
“a notice of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy
clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or
decree being appealed.” Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8002(a)(1). This rule is strictly construed.
Shareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879
(3d Cir. 1997). The fourteen day requirement is mandatory and
jurisdictional; it cannot be waived. In re
Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2011).
“The failure to file a timely notice of appeal creates
a jurisdictional defect barring appellate review.”
Shareholders, 109 F.3d at 879.
court can extend the Rule 8002 deadline in two circumstances:
(1) where the appellant requests an extension before the
deadline or (2) where the appellant requests an extension
within twenty-one days after the deadline upon a showing of
“excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8002(d). The court cannot make a finding of excusable
neglect after the twenty-one day timeline set forth in the
rule has passed. In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d at
113-114; Shareholders, 109 F.3d 879. Thus, failure
to meet deadlines will be fatal to an appellant's
Mr. Garrett's failure to follow the timelines set forth
in Rule 8002 is fatal to his appeal. The bankruptcy court
entered its order dismissing Mr. Garrett's adversary
complaint on February 6, 2017. In accordance with Rule 8002,
the deadline for Mr. Garrett's notice of appeal was
February 20, 2017. Mr. Garrett filed his notice of appeal
with the bankruptcy clerk on February 24, 2017, eighteen days
after the entry of the bankruptcy court's order. Mr.
Garrett did not request an extension of the appeal deadline
before February 20, 2017. See Fed.R.Bankr.P.
8002(d)(1)(A). Nor did he request an extension within
twenty-one days after the February 20, 2017 deadline,
alleging excusable neglect. See Fed.R.Bankr.P.
8002(d)(1)(B). Mr. Garrett had until March 13, 2017 to
make such a request. Thus, it is clear at this stage that Mr.
Garrett's appeal is untimely and that this court is
without subject-matter jurisdiction over his appeal.
Accordingly, the appellees' original motions, (Docs.
3-6), will be granted and Mr. Garrett's
bankruptcy appeal, (Doc. 1), will be dismissed. The
Grenen appellees' and JPMorgan's duplicate motions,
(Docs. 7, 9), will be dismissed as moot. An
appropriate order shall follow.
 Mr. Garrett's Chapter 7 bankruptcy
action is docketed under case number 5:16-bk-01783-JJT and
his adversary complaint is docketed under adversary number
 In addition, Mr. Garrett has not yet
filed his designation of the items to be included in the
record on appeal and his statement of the issues to be
present pursuant to Federal ...