Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Newton

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 5, 2019

Clinton Palmer, Defendant. Newton et al., Plaintiff,



         On April 16, 2019, the Court filed an Opinion and Order (DE 39) denying the motion of pro se Debtor-Appellants Andrea Newton and her husband, Mark Newton, to prosecute this appeal without submitting critical items from the record below-chiefly, the transcripts of the bankruptcy court's oral rulings that were being appealed, [1] That Opinion and Order detailed a history of delaying tactics and noncompliance with court orders. The Newtons requested a 30-day extension of the already-expired deadline to file a motion for reconsideration, which I granted until May 27, 2019. (DE 42)

         On May 30, 2019, the court received a letter from Mark Newton and Andrea Newton. (DE 44) The letter seeks reconsideration of my prior Opinion and Order, and also serves "as a formal request that the above-captioned appeals not be dismissed or the District Court otherwise takes any action because Appellants are filing an Interlocutory appeal with the Clerk of the United States District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit," anticipated to be filed by June 7, 2019.

         This would not be the first interlocutory appeal relating to these issues. On May 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied a previously filed appeal from an order denying a stay of the bankruptcy court's orders pending appeal. (DE 43) After reviewing the familiar factors governing an application for a stay, the Court ruled as follows:

Appellants argued in District Court that the Bankruptcy Court exceeded its authority by adding provisions to which they did not agree to a September 19, 2017 order setting forth the parties' settlement, but they did not support their argument by providing the transcript of the hearing at which the settlement terms were put on the record. Appellants also argued that the Bankruptcy Court exceeded its authority under Stern v. Marshall. 564 U.S. 462 (2011), but this case is in apposite as the Bankruptcy Court did not adjudicate the merits of any state law claim. In addition, Appellants argued that the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay without allowing them to be heard and without holding a hearing. The record, however, reflects that the Bankruptcy Court considered their filing after it issued the October 6, 2017 order lifting the stay and concluded that it did not affect its ruling. Appellants did not show that a hearing was required. Appellants also challenged Bankruptcy Court orders issued November 14, 2017. Not only did they fail to provide the hearing transcript containing the Court's reasoning, but their motion failed to raise a question as to those orders.

(DE 43 (emphasis added)).

         The reasoning of the Court of Appeals, while delivered in the preliminary context of a motion to stay, nevertheless bears on the merits of this motion and the appropriateness of dismissal.

         A. Reconsideration or further stay of proceedings

         Local Rule 7.l(i) governs motions for reconsideration. Such a motion must specifically identify "the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked." Id. Reconsideration is granted sparingly, generally only in one of three situations: (1) when there has been an intervening change in the law; (2) when new evidence has become available; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995); Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004). "A motion for reconsideration is improper when it is used 'to ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought through - rightly or wrongly." Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 744 F.Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990) (quoting Above the Belt v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Evidence or arguments that were available at the time of the original decision will not support a motion for reconsideration. Damiano v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 623, 636 (D.N.J. 1997); see also North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218; Bapu Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 2010 WL 5418972, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001)).

         Appellants' arguments have not improved since they asserted them in connection with a stay. They have not improved since they offered them in connection with their motion to be relieved of the burden of filing the record on appeal. At that time, they suggested that this Court should disregard the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and allow them to appeal without submitting the very oral decisions from which they are appealing. The Newtons suggest, without any supporting evidence, that they live on a meager fixed income (although they apparently long ago ceased paying rent). They further believe that the underlying decision is not required for the Court to decide their appeal. I rejected those arguments. The Newton offer no new facts or law, or matters overlooked by the court, to justify reconsideration. Reconsideration is denied.

         Given the history of this case, I cannot regard the associated request for a stay pending the filing of an interlocutory appeal as anything but a further delaying tactic. Filing an interlocutory appeal, with the likely jurisdictional hurdles, will likely eat up more time without advancing the case. Indeed, by dismissing the Newtons appeals on this basis, I will position their contentions for appellate review. The application to stay proceedings while die Newtons formulate and file an interlocutory appeal is therefore denied.

         B. Dismissal of Appeals

         The Newtons have been given multiple opportunities, for nearly a year and a half, to perfect their appeals. They are appealing from bankruptcy court orders dating from September-November 2017.[2] The orders at issue are: (1) a September 19, 2017 Order that incorporated a settlement between Appellants and their landlord, Clinton Palmer; (2) an October 6, 2017 Order that granted relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy to Palmer to proceed with eviction proceedings against Appellants for their failure to comply with the September 19, 2017 Order; and (3) a November 14, 2017 Order denying Mr. Newton's application to intervene in Ms. Newton's bankruptcy proceeding.

         The September 19, 2017 Order incorporated the terms of a settlement agreement that were placed on the record on August 30, 2017. The terms included granting access to the apartment for an exterminator, followed by the Newtons' vacating the premises within 30 days. Among other challenges raised to this Court, the Newtons have argued that the Bankruptcy Judge added provisions to the order that were not discussed or agreed to by the Newtons (who were represented by counsel at the time). (DE 13 at 4, 18)

         The November 14, 2017 Order, denying Mr. Newton's application to intervene, was denied for reasons "set forth in the Court's November 7, 2017 oral decision." The Newtons have not obtained or filed those transcripts, however. Instead, they have daisy-chained requests for adjournments of deadline, some made long after the deadlines had passed. These have been followed by elaborate excuses for missing even the adjourned deadlines that they themselves requested.

         In my prior Opinion and Order I advised the Newtons of the consequences of inaction:

As I previously advised the Newtons, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006 requires the party appealing a decision of a bankruptcy court to file, within fourteen days of filing the notice of appeal, a designation of items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of issues presented. "While the Rule does not require that the 'record on appeal' include all transcripts of the proceedings below, its provisions make clear that those documents which include 'findings of fact' or 'conclusions of law' are deemed part of the record, including transcripts." In re Harris, 464 F.3d 263, 269 (2d Cir. 2006). While I am mindful of the Newton's pro se status, the record is now substantially overdue. I have given them multiple opportunities to submit the necessary items. Those orders have met with excuses and commitments to comply if the Court will grant an extension. Having been granted extensions, the Newtons now seek to be exempted from complying at all.
"Appellants have the duty to [designate and] provide the [C]ourt with all documents, including transcripts, that are necessary to conduct substantive review." In re Olick,466 B.R. 680, 695 (E.D. Pa. 2011); see In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., 2013 WL 2383599, *l-2 (Bankr. D. Minn. May 30, 2013) (citing cases). In addition, "[i]f the record designated by any party includes a transcript of any proceeding or a part thereof, the party shall, immediately after filing the designation, deliver to the reporter and file with the clerk a written request for the transcript and make ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.