Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied the appellant’s motions for reconsideration and to stay proceedings in a bankruptcy appeal previously dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied the appellee’s motion for an order to show cause and dismissed the motion for judicial notice as moot. The court directed the clerk to keep the file closed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether reconsideration of the prior dismissal was warranted based on newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
- Whether the court should stay proceedings when the matter had already been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the court should issue an order to show cause and impose sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8020.
- Whether the trustee's motion for judicial notice should be granted.
Holdings
- Reconsideration was not warranted because the appellant identified no newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or intervening change in controlling law.
- A stay was not warranted because the matter had already been dismissed, the reconsideration motion was denied, and the appellant could not demonstrate hardship or inequity from being required to proceed.
- The trustee's motion for an order to show cause and sanctions was denied because the court's prior determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction foreclosed merits rulings, and the circumstances did not establish a sufficient basis for sanctions.
Key quotations
“Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”” (at 2)
“However, when a court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that court is foreclosed from making rulings on the merits of a case.” (at 5)
Factual background
Dam failed to respond to an order to show cause concerning his failure to comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1). The district court then dismissed his bankruptcy appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After dismissal, Dam sought reconsideration and a stay pending a related Ninth Circuit appeal, while the trustee sought sanctions-related relief based on Dam's failure to respond, alleged misrepresentations, and allegedly erroneous use of authorities.
Procedural history
Jun Dam filed a notice of appeal in the Eastern District of Washington on March 6, 2025. The court ordered him to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1); after he failed to respond, the court dismissed the appeal on May 1, 2025, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dam moved for reconsideration on May 2 and to stay proceedings on May 20. The trustee moved for an order to show cause and for judicial notice. The court denied reconsideration, denied the stay, denied the order-to-show-cause motion, dismissed the judicial-notice motion as moot, and directed that the file remain closed.